WITH  A  PREFACE  BY 


THOMAS  WILLIAM  ALLIES  K.C.S.G. 


A  r 


Of'1 


JU>  bu  1925 


>0 


<S  / 


- 


-.-O,  vision 


"BX  I80S 
v  A  4-3 


Sectioi 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/stpeterhisnarnehi00alli_0 


ST.  PETER 

HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE 


} 


ST  PETER 

HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE 

- -  WITH  A  PREFACE  BY - 

THOMAS  WILLIAM  ALLIES,  K.C.S.G. 


P.  J.  KENEDY  AND  SONS 

44  BARCLAY  STREET,  NEW  YORK 

1923 


NIHIL  OBSTAT : 

F.  Thomas  Bergh,  O.S.B., 
Censor  deputatus, 

IMPRIMATUR  : 

Edm.  Can.  Sdrmont, 
Vicarius  gmeralis. 

Westmonasterii, 
iG  Julii,  1923. 


Made  and  Printed  in  England 


PREFACE 


An  Autobiography  drawn  up  by  Thomas  William 

Allies  in  1878. 

Thomas  William  Allies.  I  was  born  February  12, 
1813,  in  a  parish  of  Somersetshire,  where  my  father 
was  then  curate  in  the  Anglican  Church.  He  was  of 
a  family  originally  seated  at  Northfield  in  Worcester¬ 
shire,  where  in  deeds  of  1368  it  is  mentioned,  and 
where  a  considerable  extent  of  land  is  still  called  by  the 
name  Allies.  My  father  afterwards  lived  at  Bristol 
and  Clifton.  I  went  to  the  Grammar  School  of 
Bristol,  but  left  it  in  1826,  and  by  my  own  choice 
was  sent  to  Eton  in  April,  1827,  when  just  fourteen. 
I  only  stayed  there  two  years,  having  gone  up  to  Oxford 
in  June,  1828,  to  try  for  a  scholarship  at  Wadham 
College,  which  I  succeeded  in  obtaining.  Though  I 
returned  to  Eton,  yet  as  I  was  matriculated  in 
November,  1828,  at  Oxford,  this  necessitated  my  going 
into  residence  in  the  following  spring.  In  that  year 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle  had  founded  an  annual  scholar¬ 
ship  for  Eton  College,  the  first  trial  for  which  came  on 
in  March,  1829.  I  was  fortunate  enough  to  obtain 
this  scholarship,  and  so  began  my  life  at  Oxford  in 
April,  1829.  I  took  mY  degree  in  1832,  gaining  a 


VI 


PREFACE 


first  class  in  classics,  but  not  going  in  for  mathematics. 
During  this  period  of  four  years  I  was  contemporary 
with  Gladstone,  whom  I  had  known  also  at  Eton, 
with  Manning,  Lord  Elgin — then  Mr.  Bruce,  after¬ 
wards  Governor- General  of  India — Lord  Selborne, 
etc.  Hearing  Gladstone  speak  at  the  Union  in  1831, 
I  set  him  down  in  my  thoughts  as  a  future  Prime 
Minister  of  England;  and  I  was  equally  sure  that 
Mr.  Roundell  Palmer  would  become  Lord  Chancellor. 
I  lived  to  see  both  these  youthful  prophecies  fulfilled 
after  forty  years.  Thus  I  took  my  degree  and  class 
before  I  was  twenty  years  of  age;  but  I  have  always 
since  felt  how  great  a  disadvantage  it  was  to  compete 
at  Oxford  at  sixteen  with  men  who  were  generally 
eighteen  or  nineteen  at  the  beginning  of  their  academic 
career.  After  I  had  succeeded  to  a  Fellowship  at 
Wadham  College  in  1833, 1  went  abroad  to  France  and 
Italy  and  did  not  return  until  the  end  of  1836,  bearing 
with  me  the  most  ardent  love  for  Italy,  with  the 
language  of  which  I  was  then  as  familiar  as  with  my 
own.  In  1837  I  determined  to  take  Orders  in  the 
Anglican  Church,  not  having  the  least  doubt  that  it 
was  part  of  the  Catholic  Church.  In  December, 
1837. 1  was  ordained  Deacon,  and  in  December,  1838, 
Priest  in  the  Anglican  Church,  both  upon  my  Fellow¬ 
ship  as  title;  and  from  the  former  date  my  serious 
life  begins.  When  I  went  to  Oxford  in  the  autumn 
of  1837  to  prepare  for  Orders,  I  found  the  whole 
atmosphere  full  of  Dr.  Newman  and  his  party.  My 


PREFACE 


Vll 


friend,  Mr.  Ward,  the  present  editor  of  the  Dublin 
Review  (in  1878),  in  answer  to  my  question  where  I 
should  find  what  Puseyism  meant,  directed  me  to  a 
work  of  Newman  just  then  published,  “  The  Pro¬ 
phetical  Office  of  the  Church  viewed  relatively  to 
Romanism  and  Popular  Protestantism.”  I  read  it, 
and  from  that  time  forth  lived  more  and  more  upon 
Newman’s  mind.  I  had  been  ordained  without  the 
slightest  instruction  in  theology,  as  at  that  time 
candidates  for  Orders  were  dispensed  from  attending 
Dr.  Hampden’s  lectures,  who  was  under  suspicion 
of  heterodoxy.  Newman  became  my  theologian.  I 
read  his  sermons,  and  his  thoughts,  together  with  the 
language  in  which  he  clothed  them,  exercised  an  ever- 
increasing  influence  upon  me.  I  can  never  remember 
a  time  when  I  did  not  believe  in  the  Catholic  Church 
— that  is,  one  community  springing  from  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  and  lasting  to  the  Day  of  Judgement. 
That  faith  was  a  gift  of  God,  anterior  to  any  self¬ 
introspection  which  I  can  call  up.  But  from  the  time 
I  set  myself  to  know  where  and  what  this  Catholic 
Church  was,  until  I  had  the  happiness  to  enter  into  it, 
passed  a  period  of  thirteen  years,  during  which  I  can 
see  now,  on  looking  back,  that  I  was  in  a  state  of 
perpetual  search.  The  steps  are  as  follows:  I  came 
to  London  in  1838,  and  had  as  private  pupils  the  sons 
of  the  Lord  Chancellor  Cottenham,  and  of  three 
puisne  Judges,  Alderson,  Coleridge,  and  Erskine.  In 
1840,  the  first  of  these,  Alderson,  a  man  of  extra- 


Vlll 


PREFACE 


ordinary  ability,  who  was  Senior  Wrangler  in  his  day, 
recommended  me  to  Dr.  Blomfield,  Bishop  of  London, 
and  I  became  his  examining  Chaplain  in  May,  1840. 
As  such  I  presented  the  candidates  to  him  for  five 
general  ordinations  from  June,  1840,  to  June,  1842; 
but  then  my  Chaplaincy  came  to  an  abrupt  termina¬ 
tion.  In  January,  1842,  the  Bishop  had  gone  to  the 
baptism  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  and  when  I  saw  him 
on  his  return,  mentioned  that  the  King  of  Prussia 
had  been  one  of  the  godfathers.  This  deeply  offended 
my  Church  principles,  that  a  Prussian  Protestant  who 
was  outside  the  Church  should  be  admitted  as  god¬ 
father.  With  more  sincerity  than  prudence  I  stated 
my  scruple  to  the  Bishop,  who  had  been  a  party  con¬ 
senting,  and  was  not  a  little  nettled  at  this  remark  of 
his  Chaplain.  For  he  wanted,  as  he  told  me  afterwards, 
“  Moderate  Oxford,”  but  this  was  immoderate  with  a 
vengeance.  He  was  the  Bishop,  it  may  be  remem¬ 
bered,  who  attempted  to  satisfy  both  parties  in  his 
diocese  by  recommending  that  the  clergy  should 
preach  in  their  surplices.  A  few  days  afterwards  the 
Bishop  said  to  me  that  he  proposed  to  give  me  the 
living  of  Launton  in  Oxfordshire.  “  I  advise  you  to  take 
it,”  he  said,  “  because  I  can  give  it  you  now,  whereas 
later  on  I  may  feel  unable  to  give  you  a  living.”  I 
was  grievously  vexed  at  the  prospect  of  going  into 
the  country:  for  I  greatly  preferred  and  enjoyed  my 
position  as  his  Chaplain.  But  there  was  no  help  for 
it,  so  I  took  Launton  with  a  capital  house  and  £600 


PREFACE 


IX 


a  year:  but  with  a  very  boorish  ignorant  population  of 
about  the  same  number  of  souls.  I  had  married  in 
1840,  and  went  thither  in  June,  1842,  where  I  re¬ 
mained  until  I  resigned  in  September,  1850.  As  a 
preparation  for  a  country  parsonage  I  bought  St 
Augustine  and  most  of  the  Fathers  in  the  old  Bene¬ 
dictine  edition :  and  during  these  eight  years  I  fed  upon 
Newman  and  them.  It  was  not  long  before  I  dis¬ 
covered  that  nothing  in  the  world  could  be  more 
different  from  “  the  Church  of  the  Fathers  ”  than  the 
Established  Church  of  England.  I  learnt  bit  by  bit 
the  sacramental  system  for  myself.  It  was  a  day 
never  to  be  forgotten  when  I  ascertained  for  myself 
from  St  Augustine  that  he  worshipped  the  Eucharist. 

Another  time  I  learned  from  a  sermon  published 
by  one  who  is  still  at  this  moment  a  Bishop  in  the 
Episcopal  Church  of  Scotland,  Dr.  Wordsworth,  that 
confession  of  sins  was  required  in  the  Church  of  the 
Fathers  in  order  to  obtain  their  pardon,  and  I  utilized 
this  by  going  to  confession  to  Dr.  Newman,  who  had 
then  withdrawn  to  Littlemore,  and  I  made  him  a 
general  confession  of  my  whole  life,  and  continued 
afterwards  to  go  to  him  at  times,  until  he  left  the 
Anglican  Church.  It  was  in  the  spring  of  1844  that 
I  thus  went  to  him.  I  set  up  the  daily  morning  and 
evening  service  in  my  church  and  early  Communion. 
In  1844  I  published  a  volume  of  sermons  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  other  subjects,  when  my 
faith  in  the  Church  of  England  was  still  unshaken. 


X 


PREFACE 


In  1844  I  restored  my  little  church  at  a  great  expense, 
and  I  remarked  that  from  the  time  it  was  reopened 
after  restoration  I  never  had  an  hour  of  peace  in  the 
Church  of  England.  In  the  year  1845  Fr.  Newman 
became  a  Catholic,  and  on  the  eve  of  his  reception 
wrote  to  me  informing  me  of  the  step  he  was  about  to 
take.  Much  as  I  had  revered  him,  greatly  as  I  felt 
I  had  gained  from  him,  and  though  I  loved  him  as 
much  after  he  had  left  us  as  before,  I  did  not  blindly 
follow  him.  I  waited  for  his  work  on  development, 
and  when  it  came,  I  fixed  upon  a  page  and  a  half 
describing  the  Primacy  of  St  Peter  and  of  the  Popes, 
as  it  was  exhibited  in  the  first  three  centuries.  I  said, 
I  will  test  these  statements.  The  question  of  the 
Primacy  includes  the  whole  question  between  the 
Church  of  England  and  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  will 
follow  this  subject  faithfully  to  its  issue,  and  where- 
ever  it  leads  me  I  will  go,  and  I  remember  that  I 
thought  to  myself,  Abraham’s  sacrifice  of  his  son 
Isaac  was  certainly  not  greater  than  it  would  be  to  me 
to  quit  the  Church  of  England.  That  was  in  October, 
1845,  an<^  it  cost  me  five  years  of  prayer  and  study 
before  the  question  which  I  had  chosen  to  determine 
the  controversy  landed  me  safely  on  the  Rock  of  Peter. 
What  I  went  through  in  those  five  years  no  words  of 
mine  can  express.  The  ever-increasing  anxiety,  the 
direction  of  all  thoughts  and  studies  to  one  point,  the 
connection  of  the  conclusion  to  be  come  to  with  my 
temporal  fortunes,  and  the  welfare  of  my  wife  and 


PREFACE 


XI 


children,  the  wish  to  be  certain,  the  fear  of  being 
deceived,  of  being  warped  one  way  by  worldly  interests, 
or  hurried  another  by  impatience,  all  these  formed  a 
trial  which  to  look  back  upon  at  almost  a  generation’s 
distance  fills  me  with  horror.  I  feel  like  the  man  who 
rode  his  horse  over  a  bridge  of  boats  one  night,  and 
when  he  saw  what  he  had  done  the  next  day,  died  of 
fright.  The  first  fruit  of  my  examination  of  the 
question  of  the  Primacy  was  a  work  intended  origi¬ 
nally  to  be  an  article  in  the  Christian  Remembrancer 
but  which  speedily  passed  the  size  of  an  article  and 
came  out  in  1846  as  “  The  Church  of  England 
cleared  from  the  Charge  of  Schism  upon  Testimonies 
of  Councils  and  Fathers  of  the  First  Six  Centuries,” 
an  octavo  of  204  pages.  In  this  I  attempted  to  state 
honestly  all  the  passages  I  could  find  in  favour  of 
St  Peter’s  Primacy  as  inherited  by  the  Popes,  and  also 
all  the  passages  which  seemed  to  me  to  impugn  it. 
The  result  was  that  I  admitted  fully  a  Primacy  of 
divine  institution,  while  I  defended  my  communion 
on  the  ground  that  the  Primacy  had  been  stretched  to 
a  Supremacy,  whereas  Anglicanism  was  an  appeal  to 
the  former  against  the  latter.  But  my  own  mind  was 
anything  but  cleared  by  this  book,  for  I  went  on 
reading  and  thinking  until  in  less  than  two  years 
came  out  a  fresh  edition  in  1848,  extended  to  more 
than  500  pages,  with  the  result,  however,  to  my  own 
mind  that  I  was  made  thoroughly  unhappy  by  the 
thought  that  my  process  of  defending  the  Church  of 


XI 1 


PREFACE 


England  left  no  Catholic  Church  at  all.  I  had  in  this 
interval  thrice  gone  abroad  for  the  summer  vacation, 
in  1845,  in  1847,  and  1848,  and  on  all  these  three 
occasions  I  sought  every  opportunity  of  seeing 
Catholics,  conversing  with  them,  examining  the  great 
works  of  charity  in  Paris  and  elsewhere,  and  trying 
to  understand  Catholic  worship,  especially  the  cultus 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  which  latter  soon  became  to  me 
an  attraction.  The  result  of  these  visits  abroad  was 
summed  up  in  a  work  published  in  1849  with  the 
title  of  “  Journal  in  France  in  1845  and  1848  with 
Letters  from  Italy  in  1847,  of  Things  and  Persons 
concerning  the  Church  and  Education.”  In  this 
volume  I  most  honestly  and  conscientiously,  as  it 
seemed  to  me,  in  my  earnest  search  after  truth,  con¬ 
trasted  Catholicism,  as  I  saw  it  in  action,  with  that 
utter  want  of  discipline  and  dogma  which  I  sawT  all 
around  me  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  which  made 
my  life  bitterness  itself.  This  work,  written  by  a 
beneficed  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England  to  the 
honour  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  made  a  clatter  in  the 
papers,  and  so  angered  my  Bishop,  Dr.  Samuel  Wilber- 
force,  that  he  threatened  to  begin  proceedings  against 
me  for  it  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Court.  A  council  of 
friends  of  both  sides,  among  whom  were  the  present 
Archdeacon  Manning,  Dr.  Pusey,  and  Baron  Alderson, 
succeeded  in  stopping  the  prosecution.  I  believe  the 
Bishop  desisted  because  he  found  that  any  sentence 
which  struck  me  would  likewise  strike  not  only  his 


PREFACE 


Xlll 


brother,  H.  W.  Wilberforce,  but  also  his  brother-in- 
law,  the  then  Archdeacon,  afterwards  Cardinal, 
Manning .  The  storm ,  therefore ,  blew  o ver ,  and  I  con¬ 
soled  myself  by  going  to  Rome  in  the  summer  of  1849, 
when  I  obtained  an  audience  of  the  Holy  Father  at 
Gaeta  in  which  he  heard  my  story  and  gave  me  his 
blessing.  The  next  spring,  1850,  brought  the  Gorham 
Decision.  I  had,  in  the  meantime,  become  very 
uncomfortable.  To  quiet  me  Dr.  Pusey  had  set  me 
to  do  a  work  on  the  Eucharist ;  and  I  was  busily  study¬ 
ing  the  “  Summa  ”  of  St  Thomas  and  the  dissertations 
of  Suarez  about  it.  I  found  to  my  great  delight  that 
the  explanation  of  the  Real  Presence  in  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation  given  by  St  Thomas  was  the 
most  spiritual  that  I  had  ever  met  with,  seeming  to 
me  to  harmonize  the  doctrine,  practice,  and  worship 
of  the  Fathers.  I  had  conceived  the  profoundest 
veneration  for  the  Catholic  priesthood  since  I  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  that  Mass  was  offered  daily 
by  priests :  for  though  I  had  lived  six  months  together 
at  Rome  in  my  youth,  I  had  not  learned  so  much  as 
that;  my  time  for  visiting  churches  being  then  late 
in  the  day.  I  was  busily  engaged  in  this  work  on  the 
Eucharist,  when  suddenly,  I  know  not  how  or  why, 
my  eyes  fell  in  Gibson’s  Codex  upon  the  Act  of 
Parliament  in  Henry  VIITs  reign,  transferring  to  the 
Crown  the  Papal  Supremacy.  Is  this  really  so,  I 
said  to  myself.  Dr.  Pusey  always  has  told  me — he 
had  become  my  confessor  after  Newman  left  us — 


XIV 


PREFACE 


that  the  power  of  the  Crown  over  the  Church  was  an 
usurpation,  but  this  act  makes  it  the  foundation-stone, 
the  beginning  of  the  separate  existence  of  the  Church 
of  England.  The  more  I  looked  the  more  certain  it 
seemed.  In  the  few  days  that  followed  I  betook 
myself  eagerly  to  the  work  of  Suarez,  “  De  Erroribus 
Sectae  Anglicanae,”  and  the  result  was  a  pamphlet 
on  the  “  Royal  Supremacy  viewed  in  Reference  to  the 
Two  Spiritual  Powers  of  Order  and  Jurisdiction.”  I 
sent  this  to  my  chief  friends,  but  I  found  that  not  one 
of  them  would  grapple  with  the  argument.  Neither 
Dr.  Pusey  nor  Archdeacon  Manning,  nor  Judges 
Alderson  and  Coleridge,  nor  Archdeacon  Wilberforce, 
nor  anyone  else  publicly  or  privately,  would  meet  my 
authorities  and  say,  “You  have  mistaken  the  Royal 
Supremacy  and  the  Act  of  Parliament.”  But  I  found 
a  general  disposition  to  ignore  my  pamphlet  as  ill- 
timed  and  uncomfortable.  It  came  out  just  after 
the  Gorham  decision.  That  wonderful  decision  laid 
down  the  law  of  the  Church  of  England  concerning 
Baptismal  Regeneration  to  be,  that  those  of  her 
ministers  who  believed  it  might  continue  to  believe 
it  and  to  preach  it,  and  those  who  disbelieved  it  might 
continue  to  disbelieve  it  and  to  preach  their  disbelief 
of  it.  A  community  which  came  to  such  a  decision 
concerning  the  point  which  implies  the  acceptance 
on  the  one  hand  or  the  rejection  on  the  other  of  the 
whole  sacramental  system  seemed  to  me  only  worthy 
to  be  spat  upon.  From  that  time  forth  I  never 


PREFACE 


XV 


hated  or  despised  anything  as  I  did  the  Church  of 
England.  But  I  waited  to  see  if  anybody  in  her 
would  repudiate  the  judgement.  No  such  repudia¬ 
tion  came.  None  has  ever  come.  Her  Convocation 
has  since  repeatedly  met,  but  that  decision  has  never 
been  touched.  The  Gorham  decision  had,  moreover, 
a  positive  effect  on  my  own  view  of  the  great  question 
about  the  Primacy.  It  made  it  clear  to  me  as  the  day 
that  the  point  was  not  whether  a  Primacy  had  become 
a  Supremacy,  but  whether  the  Crown  or  the  Church 
was  to  rule  in  things  spiritual.  That  the  Church  was 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ  I  had  never  doubted;  and  as 
little  that  He  had  set  over  His  Church  not  earthly 
sovereigns,  but  St  Peter  and  the  College  of  Apostles. 
In  the  autumn  of  that  year  I  set  myself  to  make  a  reply 
to  my  own  book  which  I  had  called  a  defence  of  the 
Church  of  England.  It  was  entitled  “  The  See  of 
St  Peter,  the  Rock  of  the  Church,  the  Source  of 
Jurisdiction,  and  the  Centre  of  Unity.”  I  waited  till 
it  was  ready  and  then  abjured  the  Anglican  heresies 
and  was  received  into  the  Church  by  Fr.  Newman, 
September  n,  1850. 

The  reflection  which  I  would  make  on  all  the 
preceding  history  is  that  no  man  among  us,  not  even 
Fr.  Newman,  was  born  after  a  more  laborious  travail, 
so  far  as  years  of  anxiety  and  inward  struggle  are 
implied  in  that  expression.  It  is  my  joy  to  add  that 
no  one  can  have  felt  more  peace  and  satisfaction  in 
the  truth  of  the  Catholic  Church  than  I  have  felt  in 


XVI 


PREFACE 


the  twenty-seven  years  which  have  since  elapsed. 
Most  converts  in  England  could  supply  another 
chapter  to  Fr.  Newman’s  story  of  “  Loss  and  Gain.” 
Certainly  I  could.  But  this  is  not  the  place  for  it. 
I  will  only  say  that  at  thirty-seven  it  was  difficult 
to  locate  oneself  afresh  in  an  extremely  busy  and 
crowded  world.  If  Masters  of  Arts  do  not  sweep  the 
roads  in  London,  as  they  are  said  to  do  at  Melbourne, 
there  is  at  least  no  more  helpless  two-legged  animal 
than  an  ex-parson  with  wife  and  children,  who  has 
become  a  Catholic.  The  epyov  which  I  had  so 
passionately  followed  for  thirteen  years  was  gone. 
I  felt  of  about  as  much  value  or  weight  in  the  world 
as  a  piece  of  sea-weed  tossed  by  the  surge  high  above 
the  water  line.  I  may  briefly  note  what  I  have  done 
since  as  an  author.  In  1852  I  published  “  St  Peter, 
His  Name  and  His  Office,”  drawn  partially  from 
Passaglia’s  work.  In  1853  Fr.  Newman,  then  Rector 
of  the  Catholic  University  at  Dublin,  proposed 
to  me  to  become  Lecturer  on  the  Philosophy  of 
History  there.  I  delivered  an  inaugural  Lecture  on 
the  subject  in  December,  1854.  The  work  called  the 
“  Formation  of  Christendom,”  of  which  three  volumes 
have  successively  appeared  in  1865,  1869,  and  1875, 
was  originally  intended  to  form  part  of  a  course  on  the 
Philosophy  of  History,  and  to  be  delivered  at  Dublin; 
but  when  the  first  volume  was  ready  the  author  found 
that  no  need  of  lectures  on  that  subject  had  been  felt 
at  the  University,  and  the  work  has  appeared  in- 


PREFACE 


xvn 


dependently  of  it.  It  would  require  at  least  three 
volumes  more  to  complete  the  author’s  design,  depen¬ 
dent,  of  course,  upon  the  time,  health,  and  leisure 
granted  by  Almighty  God.  I  should  add,  in  1865 
Dr.  Pusey  published  what  he  termed  an  Eirenicon, 
the  character  of  which  may  best  be  described  by 
Fr.  Newman’s  question  to  him,  “  Why  did  you  dis¬ 
charge  your  olive  branch  from  a  catapult  ?”  In  this 
work  Dr.  Pusey,  inter  alia ,  attacked  my  conclusions 
upon  the  Papacy  as  not  being  trustworthy,  for,  he  said, 
so  long  as  I  was  led  by  the  sole  motive  of  seeking  the 
truth,  I  came  to  a  conclusion  adverse  to  the  Papal 
Supremacy.  I  answered  this  imputation  in  a  letter 
to  Dr.  Pusey  in  1865,  and  further  in  1866  I  wrote  a 
work  of  130  pages  entitled  “  Dr.  Pusey  and  the  Ancient 
Church,”  the  drift  of  which  was  to  demonstrate  by  the 
testimony  of  St  Augustine  and  all  the  Fathers  down 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  that  the  possession  of  the 
Priesthood  and  of  the  Apostolical  Succession  was  no 
defence  against  the  charge  of  Schism  and  Heresy. 
This  work  I  consider  to  have  completed  my  answer 
to  my  former  work  in  defence  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
Those  to  whom  it  was  directed  have  always  carefully 
ignored  it:  and  Dr.  Pusey  especially  never  acknow¬ 
ledged  even  the  receipt  of  the  copy  which  I  sent  to 
him:  as  neither  did  he  acknowledge  the  letter  in 
which  I  answered  his  imputation  of  motives.  I  have 
likewise  since  August,  1853,  been  Secretary  of  the 
Catholic  Poor  School  Committee  for  Great  Britain, 


XV111 


PREFACE 


and  as  such  have  been  greatly  interested  in  the  pro¬ 
motion  of  Primary  Education.  Of  the  life  hitherto 
sketched  I  sum  up  the  whole  in  the  words:  Miseri- 
cordias  Domini  in  ceternum  cantabo. 

London, 

January  30,  1878. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  The  Name  of  Peter  Promised,  Conferred, 

and  Explained  -  i 

II.  Education  and  Final  Designation  of  Peter 
to  be  the  Ruler  who  should  Confirm 
his  Brethren  -  -  -  -  33 

III.  The  Investiture  of  Peter  -  -  72 

IV.  The  Correspondence  and  Equivalence  of 

the  Great  Texts  concerning  Peter  -  94 

V.  St  Peter’s  Primacy  as  exhibited  in  the 

Acts  ------  127 

VI.  Testimony  of  St  Paul  to  St  Peter’s 

Primacy  -  -  -  -  177 

VII.  St  Peter’s  Primacy  involved  in  the  Four¬ 
fold  Unity  of  Christ’s  Kingdom  -  199 


VIII.  Summary  of  Proof  given  for  St  Peter’s 
Primacy 

IX.  Petrus  de  Petra 
Index  - 


-  223 

-  274 

-  289 


xix 


ST  PETER:  HIS  NAME  AND 

HIS  OFFICE 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  NAME  OF  PETER  PROMISED,  CONFERRED, 

AND  EXPLAINED 

Our  Lord  tells  us  that  he  came  upon  earth  to  “  finish 
a  work  ”;  and  he  likewise  tells  us  what  that  work  was, 
the  setting  up  a  living  society  of  men,  who  should 
dwell  in  him  and  he  in  them;  on  whom  his  Spirit 
should  rest,  with  whom  his  presence  should  abide, 
until  the  consummation  of  all  things.  For  the  even¬ 
ing  before  his  Passion,  “  lifting  up  his  eyes  to  heaven, 
he  said,  Father,  the  hour  is  come.  ...  I  have 
glorified  thee  on  the  earth:  I  have  finished  the  work 
which  thou  gavest  me  to  do.  ...  I  have  manifested 
thy  name  to  the  men  whom  thou  hast  given  me  out  of 
the  world.  Thine  they  were,  and  to  me  thou  gavest 
them;  and  they  have  kept  thy  word.  .  .  .  Holy 
Father,  keep  them  in  thy  name,  whom  thou  hast  given 
me;  that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  also  are.  While  I 
was  with  them,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name.  .  .  .  And 
now  I  come  to  thee.  ...  I  pray  not  that  thou 
shouldst  take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou 
shouldst  keep  them  from  evil.  ...  As  thou  hast 
sent  me  into  the  world,  I  also  have  sent  them  into  the 


2 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


world.  And  for  them  do  I  sanctify  myself,  that  they 
also  may  be  sanctified  in  truth.  And  not  for  them 
only  do  I  pray,  but  for  those  also  who  through  their 
word  shall  believe  in  me;  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as 
thou,  Father,  in  me,  and  I  in  thee;  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us;  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou 
hast  sent  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  hast  given 
to  me,  I  have  given  to  them,  that  they  may  be  one,  as 
we  also  are  one.  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me;  that 
they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one;  and  the  world  may 
know  that  thou  hast  sent  me,  and  hast  loved  them  as 
thou  hast  loved  me.  .  .  .  And  I  have  made  known 
thy  name  to  them,  and  will  make  it  known;  that  the 
love  wherewith  thou  hast  loved  me  may  be  in  them, 
and  I  in  them.”1 

Thus,  the  Eternal  Word  declares  to  us  that  the 
fruit  of  his  Incarnation,  the  “  finished  work  ”  which 
his  Father  had  given  him  to  do,  was  the  establishment 
of  a  society  whose  unity  in  “  truth  ”  and  “  love  ” 
should  be  so  perfect,  that  he  exemplifies  it  by  the 
indwelling  in  each  other  of  the  Divine  Persons.  This 
society  was  to  be  perpetual  and  visible  for  ever,  so 
that  the  world  by  it  and  in  it  should  recognize  his  own 
mission,  and  believe  in  the  sender.  So  the  dowry  of 
this  society,  thus  perpetually  visible,  was  to  be  the 
equally  perpetual  possession  of  truth — the  revelation 
of  God’s  will — and  of  love,  which  is  conformity  to  it. 
And  he  based  these  unexampled  promises  on  no  less 
a  guarantee  than  the  almighty  power  and  ineffable 
goodness  of  his  Father,  witnessed  by  his  own  dwelling 
amongst  us  in  our  flesh. 

1  John  xvii. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


3 


Elsewhere  he  termed  this  society  his  Church,  de¬ 
clared  that  he  would  “  build  it  on  a  rock,  and  that  the 
gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  it.”1 

He  told  those  whom  he  had  set  over  it  to  go  forth 
in  his  name  and  “  to  teach  all  nations  whatsoever 
he  had  commanded  them,”  adding  the  solemn  engage¬ 
ment  on  his  own  part,  “  Behold  I  am  with  you  all  days, 
even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.”2 

His  whole  teaching  is  full  of  reference  to  it,  setting 
forth  its  nature  with  every  variety  of  illustration, 
enfolding  it,  as  it  were,  with  an  exuberance  of  divine 
charity. 

But  two  conceptions  run  through  every  illustration, 
and  are  involved  in  its  primary  idea,  nay,  as  this  was 
the  finished  work  of  his  Incarnation,  so  are  they  found 
in  his  adorable  person  from  which  his  work  springs. 
These  conceptions  are  unity  and  visibility. 

As  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  consists  in  the 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  one  Person, 
and  in  the  assumption  of  a  body — that  is,  matter  by  the 
one  uncreated,  incomprehensible,  and  invisible  Being, 
whereby  he  becomes  visible — so  unity  and  visibility 
are  the  unfailing  marks  of  his  Church,  and  enter  into 
every  image  of  it,  in  such  a  manner  that  without  them 
the  image  loses  its  point  and  significancy. 

Accordingly  he  proclaims  the  Church  which  he 
was  founding  to  be  “  the  Kingdom  of  God,”  and 
“  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,”  thus  bringing  before  us 
the  conceptions  of  order,  government,  power,  head¬ 
ship  on  the  one  hand,  dependence  on  the  other,  and  a 
host  of  mutual  relations  between  the  Sovereign  and 
1  Matt,  xvi  1 8.  2  Matt,  xxviii  19,  20. 


4 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


the  people,  significantly  remarking  that  “  a  kingdom 
which  is  divided  against  itself  must  fall.”  Now  a 
kingdom  without  unity  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and 
a  kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  which  cannot  be  seen, 
would  be  for  spirits  and  not  for  men. 

So  he  calls  it  a  “  city  seated  on  a  mountain,”  which 
“  cannot  be  hid  answering  to  his  prophet’s  words, 
“  the  city  of  the  great  King,”  “  his  rest,  and  his 
habitation  for  ever.”1  Here  again  are  embodied  the 
notions  of  order,  government,  conspicuous  majesty, 
impregnable  strength. 

Thus  he  inspires  his  apostle  to  call  it  “  the  house 
of  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.”2  The 
house  must  have  its  head,  the  family  their  father;  the 
knowledge  of  that  father’s  will  is  the  truth  which 
rests  upon  the  family  as  its  support  and  pillar.  Out¬ 
side  the  family  that  knowledge  may  be  lost,  together 
with  the  will  to  obey  the  father  and  to  love  him;  but 
within  it  is  a  living  tradition,  “  familiar  to  the  ear  as 
household  words.”  As  long  as  the  Master  and  the 
Father  is  there,  a  perpetual  light  from  his  face  is  there 
too  upon  his  children  and  his  servants.  Divide  the 
house,  or  corrupt  its  internal  life,  and  the  idea  of  the 
house  is  destroyed;  while  an  invisible  house  is  an 
absurdity. 

Again,  the  Lord,  calling  himself  “  the  Good  Shep¬ 
herd,  who  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep,”3  terms  his 
Church  the  sheep-fold,  and  declares  that  as  there 
is  one  Shepherd,  so  there  must  be  one  fold. 

But,  rising  yet  in  nearness  to  the  Divine  Person 

1  Matt,  v  14;  Ps.  xlvii  2;  cxxxi  13,  14. 

2  1  Tim.  iii  15  3  John  x  11-16. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  5 

of  the  Word  Incarnate,  from  whose  side  sleeping  on 
the  cross  she  is  moulded,  the  Church  is  called  his 
spouse,  as  united  to  him  in  eternal  wedlock,  “  a  great 
sacrament,”  or  mystery;  and  even  yet  more,  his  body, 
as  supported  by  the  continual  influx  of  her  Head ;  and 
all  her  members  are  called  “  flesh  of  his  flesh,  and 
bone  of  his  bones.”1 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  these  promises  and 
illustrations  are  set  forth,  as  belonging  to  their  object, 
a  visible  unity,  a  perpetual  possession  and  maintenance 
of  the  truth,  and  the  closest  union  with  God,  founded 
upon  a  most  supernatural  indwelling  of  the  Godhead 
in  a  society  of  men  on  earth,  the  founding  of  which 
was  the  “  finished  work  ”  of  God  the  Word  Incarnate. 
Were  these  promises  to  fail  in  any  respect — which  is 
utterly  impossible,  for  while  heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away,  no  word  of  their  Maker  can  pass  away — 
it  is  plain  that  our  ground  for  trusting  in  any  promises  of 
Holy  Writ  whatsoever  would  he  demolished.  The  whole 
Christian  revelation  rests  on  the  imperishable  life  of 
the  Church ;  because  the  corruption  or  division  of  the 
Church  would  falsify  the  written  records  of  our  faith, 
in  which,  after  the  doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  and 
the  Godhead  of  our  Lord,  no  truth  is  so  deeply  im¬ 
bedded  as  the  perpetual  existence  and  office  of  the 
Church. 

We  have  seen  the  idea  of  King,  Lord,  Master, 
Father,  Shepherd,  Husband,  and  Head,  running 
through  the  delineation  of  the  Church.  And  no 
society  is  complete  without  its  ruler.  Such  was  our 
Lord,  while  on  earth — the  visible  ruler  of  a  visible 

1  Eph.  v  32,  30. 


6 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Church.  “  While  I  was  with  them,  I  kept  them  in 
thy  name.”  He  went  forth  from  his  baptism  to  win 
souls.  The  water  became  wine  in  his  presence.  He 
bade  men  follow  him,  and  they  followed.  Power 
went  forth  from  him  and  healed  diseases.  Grace 
flowed  from  his  lips  and  conquered  hearts.  An 
innumerable  multitude  surrounded  him,  of  all  ages 
and  conditions.  “  And  going  up  into  a  mountain,  he 
called  unto  him  whom  he  would  himself;  and  they 
came  to  him.  And  he  made  that  twelve  should  be 
with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  to  preach.”1 

Here,  then,  the  true  Israel  chooses  the  future  princes 
of  his  house,  who  should  sit  with  him  on  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes.  Already,  while  yet  with 
his  Church,  he  is  preparing  for  her  future  government, 
when  his  visible  presence  shall  be  taken  from  her. 
In  three  years  all  shall  be  accomplished,  but  when 
“  the  covenant  should  have  been  confirmed  with 
many  in  one  week,  and  in  the  half  of  the  week  the 
victim  and  the  sacrifice  should  fail”;2  when  his 
Apostles  should  see  him  no  longer;  was  any  one 
ordained  to  take  that  all-important  place  of  supreme 
ruler  which  he  had  filled  ?  For  upon  earth  he  had 
been  in  two  relations  to  his  Church:  her  Founder,  and 
her  Ruler.  The  former  office  belonged  to  his  single 
Person ;  in  its  nature  it  could  not  pass  to  another ;  the 
work  was  finished  once  and  for  ever.  But  the  latter 
office  was,  in  its  nature,  likewise  perpetual.  How, 
then,  should  the  charge  of  visible  ruler,  as  man  among 
men,  be  executed,  when  his  Person  was  withdrawn, 
when  he  ascended  up  on  high,  when  all  power  in  heaven 
1  Mark  iii  13.  2  Dan.  iv  26. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


7 


and  earth  was  indeed  given  into  his  hands,  and  so  the 
headship  of  spiritual  influence  and  providential  care  ? 
Then,  indeed,  that  sacred  Body  was  withdrawn  into 
the  tabernacle  of  God,  and  the  Bridegroom  was  taken 
away  for  a  time,  and  the  voice  and  visible  presence, 
“  what  they  had  seen,  and  heard,  and  handled,  of  the 
word  of  life,”1  “  was  with  them  and  kept  them  ”  no 
longer.  Should  his  Church,  which  had  been  under 
one  visible  ruler  from  the  beginning,  now  have  her 
government  changed  ?  Or  had  he  marked  out  any 
one  among  the  Twelve  to  succeed  to  his  own  office 
of  visible  headship,  and  to  be  “  the  greater,”  and  “  the 
ruler  ”2  among  his  brethren,  his  own  special  repre¬ 
sentative  and  vicar  ? 

To  answer  this  question,  we  must  carefully  observe 
and  distinguish  what  is  said  and  what  is  given  to  the 
Apostles  in  common ,  and  what  to  any  one  of  their 
number  in  particular;  the  former  will  instruct  us  as 
to  their  equality,  the  latter  as  to  the  pre-eminence 
which  any  one  enjoyed  over  the  rest,  and  in  what  it 
consisted. 

Just,  then,  as  at  a  certain  period  of  his  ministry,  our 
Lord,  out  of  the  multitude  who  followed  him,  selected 
twelve  to  be  his  special  attendants  upon  earth,  and, 
when  he  should  be  taken  up,  to  be  the  heralds  of  his 
Gospel  among  all  nations:  so  out  of  the  twelve  he 
from  the  beginning  distinguished  one,  marked  him 
out  for  a  peculiar  and  singular  office,  connected  him 
with  himself  in  a  special  manner,  and  having  after 
through  the  whole  of  his  ministry  given  him  tokens 
and  intimations  of  his  future  destination,  at  last 
1  i  John  i  i.  2  Luke  xxii  26. 


8 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


expressly  nominated  him  to  take  his  own  place,  and 
preside  among  his  brethren.  His  dealing  with  this 
Apostle  forms  one  connected  whole,  in  which  there  is 
nothing  abrupt  or  inharmonious,  out  of  keeping,  or 
opposed  to  what  he  said  to  others.  What  is  at  first 
obscurely  intimated  is  afterwards  expressly  promised, 
again  in  fresh  terms  corroborated,  and  at  last,  in  yet 
other  language,  but  of  the  like  force,  most  significantly 
conveyed,1  while  it  is  attested  by  a  number  of  inci¬ 
dental  notices  scattered  through  the  whole  Gospel 
history.  Thus2  it  becomes  necessary  to  consider 
each  particular,  as  well  as  the  whole  sum  of  things 
said,  proper  and  peculiar  to  this  Apostle;  to  weigh  first 
their  separate  and  then  their  joint  force,  and  only  at 
last  to  form  a  united  judgement  upon  all. 

We  are  searching  into  the  will  of  the  divine  Founder 
of  our  faith,  which  he  has  not  only  communicated 
to  his  Church  in  a  living  tradition,  but  in  this  case 
likewise  ordered  to  be  set  forth  in  authentic  written 
documents.  These  alone  we  are  here  considering, 
and  the  point  in  question  is  whether  he  decreed  that 
all  the  Twelve  should  share  equally  in  that  divine 
mission  and  authority  which  he  had  received  from  the 
Father,  or  whether,  while  bestowing  on  them  all  very 
high  and  distinctive  powers,  he  yet  appointed  one, 
namely  Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas,  to  preside  over  the 
rest  in  his  own  place.  We  have,  then,  to  consider  all 
in  these  documents  which  is  said  peculiar  to  such 
Apostle,  pointing  out  singular  gifts  and  prerogatives, 
and  carrying  with  it  special  authority  of  government. 

1  See  John  i  42;  Mark  iii  16;  Matt,  xvi  18;  Luke  xxii  32; 
John  xxi  15.  2  Passaglia,  pp.  35-37. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


9 


And  we  must  remember  that  where  proofs  are  numer¬ 
ous  and  complex,  some  which  in  themselves  are  only 
probable  and  accessory,  yet  have  their  force  on  the 
ultimate  result.  But  this  result  must  be  drawn  from 
a  general  view  of  the  whole,  and  will  collect  in  one  the 
sum  of  proof  both  probable  and  certain. 

Again,  where  many  various  causes  concur,  some 
more  and  some  less,  to  produce  a  certain  effect,  the 
force  of  such  effect  is  the  force  of  all  these  causes  put 
together,  not  of  each  by  itself  alone.  Or  where  many 
witnesses  are  examined,  whose  evidence  differs  in 
value,  although  the  testimony  of  some  be  in  itself 
decisive,  yet  the  verdict  must  be  given  after  a  con¬ 
sideration  and  review  of  all. 

Now,  the  first  mention  which  we  have  of  the  Apostle 
Simon  is  full  of  signification.  Our  Lord  had  only 
just  begun  his  ministry;  he  had  been  lately  baptized, 
and  as  yet  had  called  no  disciples.  But  two  of  John  the 
Baptist’s  disciples,  hearing  their  master  name  Jesus 
“  the  Lamb  of  God,”  follow  him,  are  kindly  received 
by  him,  and  one  of  them,  being  Andrew,  Simon’s 
brother,  finds  Simon,  and  says  to  him,  “  We  have 
found  the  Messias.  And  he  brought  him  to  Jesus. 
And  Jesus  looking  on  him  said,  Thou  art  Simon  the 
son  of  Jonas;  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas,  which  is 
interpreted  Peter:”1  as  if  he  would  say,  By  birth  thou 
art  Simon,  son  of  John;  but  another  and  a  higher  lot 
is  in  store  for  thee.  I  will  give  thee  another  name 
which  thou  shalt  bear,  a  name  in  itself  signifying  the 
place  which  thou  shalt  hold  in  my  Church.  Thou 
shalt  be  called,  and  thou  shalt  be,  the  Rock. 

1  John  i  35-42. 


10 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


For  why,  when  a  vast  multitude  of  our  Lord’s  words 
and  actions  have  been  omitted,  was  this  recorded  for 
us,  save  that  a  deep  meaning  lay  in  it  ?  Or  what 
could  that  meaning  be  when  our  Lord,  for  the  first 
time  looking  on  Peter,  promised  to  him  and  to  him 
alone,  a  new  name,  and  that  a  name  given  in  prophecy 
to  himself,  a  name  declaring  by  its  very  sound  that  he 
should  be  laid  by  the  builder,  as  a  foundation  of  the 
structure  about  to  be  raised  ?  So  in  the  fourth 
century  St  Chrysostom  comments  on  the  text,  calling 
him  “  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  he  that  was 
really  Peter  ”  (the  Rock)  “  both  in  name  and  in  deed  ” ; 
and  a  little  after  St  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  “  with  allusion 
to  the  rock  he  transferred  his  name  to  Peter,  for  upon 
him  he  was  about  to  found  his  Church.”1  The 
V  Creator  of  the  world  does  not  give  a  name  for  nothing. 
His  word  is  with  power,  and  does  what  it  expresses. 
Of  old,  “  He  spake  and  they  were  made ;  he  commanded 
and  they  were  created.”  Now,  too,  he  speaks,  at  the 
first  dawn  of  his  great  spiritual  restoration.  When  as 
yet  nothing  has  been  done,  and  not  a  stone  of  the 
divine  building  reared,  he  who  determines  the  end 
from  the  beginning  looks  upon  one  who  seemed  a 
simple  fisherman,  and  at  first  beholding  him,  he  takes 
Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas,  out  of  the  roll  of  common 
men ;  he  marks  him  for  a  future  design ;  he  wraps  him 
in  a  prophetic  title;  he  associates  him  with  his  own 
immovable  power.  Of  himself  it  has  been  said,2 
“  Behold  I  will  lay  a  stone  in  the  foundation  of  Sion, 

1  St  Chrysostom  on  the  text.  St  Cyril  in  Joan,  i  42. 

2  Isa.  xxviii  16;  Ps.  cxvii  22;  Dan.  ii  35;  Zach.  iii  9; 
Eph.  ii  20. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


II 


a  tried  stone,  a  corner-stone,  a  precious  stone,  founded 
on  the  foundation.  He  that  believeth,  let  him  not 
hasten.”  And  again,  “  The  stone  which  the  builders 
rejected,  the  same  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner: 
this  is  the  Lord’s  doing,  and  it  is  wonderful  in  our 
eyes.”  And  again,  “  A  stone  was  cut  out  of  a  moun¬ 
tain  without  hands ;  and  it  struck  the  statue  upon  the 
feet  thereof  that  were  of  iron  and  clay,  and  broke  them 
in  pieces.  But  the  stone  that  struck  the  statue  became 
a  great  mountain,  and  filled  the  whole  earth.”  And 
again,  “  Behold  the  stone  that  I  have  laid  before  Jesus: 
upon  one  stone  there  are  seven  eyes;  behold,  I  will 
grave  the  graving  thereof,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts; 
and  I  will  take  away  the  iniquity  of  that  land  in  one 
day.”  In  reference  to  which  St  Paul  said  of  Christians, 
that  they  are  “  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner-stone;  in  whom  all  the  building, 
being  framed  together,  groweth  up  into  a  holy  temple 
in  the  Lord.”  It  is  plain,  then,  that  our  Lord,  “  both 
by  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  is  called  a 
stone.”1 

But  this  which  he  had  of  himself,  and  by  virtue 
of  his  own  divine  power,  as  the  Word  of  God,  he  would 
communicate  in  a  degree,  and  by  dependence  on 
himself,  to  another.  This  is  no  modern  interpreta¬ 
tion,  but  the  very  words  of  St  Ambrose:  “  Great  is 
the  grace  of  Christ,  who  bestowed  almost  all  his  own 
names  on  his  disciples.  I,  said  he,  am  the  light  of 
the  world,  and  yet  he  granted  to  his  disciples  the  very 
name  in  which  he  exulted,  by  the  words,  Ye  are  the 

1  Theodoret  in  Dan.  ii  34. 


12 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


light  of  the  world.  Christ  is  the  Rock,  but  yet  he  did 
not  deny  the  grace  of  this  name  to  his  disciple,  that  he 
should  be  Peter,  because  he  has  from  the  Rock  firm 
constancy,  immovable  faith.”1 

In  the  third  century,  Origen,  on  this  very  text, 
observes:  “  He  said  he  should  be  called  Peter,  by 
allusion  to  the  Rock,  which  is  Christ,  that  as  a  man 
from  wisdom  is  termed  wise,  and  from  holiness  holy, 
so  too  Peter  from  the  Rock.”  And  in  the  fifth,  St  Leo 
paraphrases  the  name  thus :  “  While  I  am  the  inviolable 
Rock,  the  Corner-stone,  who  make  both  one,  the 
foundation  beside  which  no  one  can  lay  another;  yet 
thou  also  art  the  rock,  because  by  my  virtue  thou  art 
established  so  as  to  enjoy  by  participation  the  properties 
which  are  peculiar  to  me.”2 

Here,  then,  we  have  three  facts:  (i)  That  our  Lord 
having  twelve  apostles  whom  he  chose,  loved,  and 
honoured,  above  all  his  other  disciples,  yet  promised 
to  one  only  a  new  name;3  and  (2)  this  a  name  in  the 
highest  degree  significative,  and  most  deeply  pro¬ 
phetical  of  a  particular  office ;  and  (3)  a  name  peculiar 
to  himself,  as  the  immovable  foundation  of  the  Church. 
This  happened  in  the  first  year  of  his  ministry,  before, 

1  Ambrose  in  Luc.,  lib.  6,  n.  97.  2  Serm.  iv  2. 

3  For  the  name  Boanerges,  which  in  one  place  is  given  to 
the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  is  in  the  first  place  a  joint  name; 
secondly,  it  is  nowhere  else  referred  to,  and  does  not  take 
the  place  of  their  birth-names;  thirdly,  it  indicates  not  an 
official  dignity,  but  an  inward  disposition.  We  cannot 
doubt  that  such  a  name  bestowed  on  the  two  brothers  was 
a  mark  of  great  distinction,  but,  for  the  above  reasons,  it 
cannot  come  into  competition  with  the  name  of  Peter.  See 
Passaglia,  p.  44,  n.  38. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  13 

as  it  would  appear,  either  Peter  or  any  other  Apostle 
was  called. 

The  promise  thus  emphatically  made  to  Simon, 
“  Thou  shalt  be  called  the  Rock,”  our  Lord  fulfilled 
in  the  second  year  of  his  ministry,  when  he  distin¬ 
guished  the  twelve  Apostles  from  the  rest  of  his 
disciples,  giving  them  authority  to  teach,  and  power  to 
heal  sicknesses  and  to  cast  out  devils.  Then,  says 
St  Mark,  “  to  Simon  he  gave  the  name  of  Peter 
and  St  Matthew,  “  The  names  of  the  twelve  apostles 
are  these:  the  first,  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter;”  and 
St  Luke,  “  Simon,  whom  also  he  named  Peter.”1 
And  by  this  name  he  marked  him  out  from  amongst 
all  his  brethren,  and  united  him  to  himself.  “  He 
changes,  too,”  says  Tertullian,  “  Peter’s  name  from 
Simon,  because  also  as  Creator  he  altered  the  names 
of  Abraham,  Sara,  and  Oshua,  calling  the  last  Jesus, 
and  adding  syllables  to  the  others,  but  why  did  he 
call  him  Peter  ?  If  for  the  strength  of  his  faith,  many 
solid  substances  would  lend  him  a  name  from  them¬ 
selves.  Or  was  it  because  Christ  is  both  the  Rock  and 
the  Stone,  since  we'read  that  he  is  set  for  a  stone  of 
stumbling  and  a  rock  of  offence  ?  I  omit  the  rest. 
And  so  it  was  his  pleasure  to  communicate  to  the 
dearest  of  his  disciples,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  a  name 
drawn  from  the  figures  of  himself,  I  imagine,  as  being 
nearer  than  one  drawn  from  figures  not  of  himself.”2 

It  is,  then,  setting  a  seal  on  his  former  acts,  drawing 
out  and  corroborating  their  meaning,  that  he  once 
more,  and  in  the  most  emphatic  way  of  all,  recurs  to 

1  Mark  iii  14;  Matt,  x  1 ;  Luke  vi  14 

2  Cont.  Marcion.,  1.  4,  c.  13. 


14  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

this  name,  attaching  to  it  the  most  signal  promises, 
and  establishing  its  prophetic  power.  In  the  third 
year  of  his  ministry  our  Lord  “  came  into  the  quarters 
of  Cesarea  Philippi;  and  he  asked  his  disciples, saying, 
Whom  do  men  say  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  ?  But  they 
said,  Some  John  the  Baptist,  and  others  Elias,  and 
others  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  Jesus  saith 
to  them,  But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  Simon  Peter 
answered  and  said,  Thou  art  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God.  And  Jesus  answering,  said  to  him, 
Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar  Jona,  because  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to  thee,  but  my  Father  who 
is  in  heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter; 
and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church,  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
also  in  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.” 

When  we  reflect  that  the  first  act  of  our  Lord  to 
Peter  was  to  look  upon  him,  and  to  promise  him  this 
name,  a  token  of  his  omnipotence  to  Simon  yet  know¬ 
ing  him  not,  as  that  seeing  him  under  the  fig-tree  was 
to  Nathanael  of  his  omniscience;  and  that  when  he 
chose  his  twelve  Apostles,  it  is  said  markedly,  “  to 
Simon  he  gave  the  name  of  Peter,”  the  force  of  his 
reply  cannot  well  be  exceeded.  The  promise  of  our 
Lord  answers  part  by  part  to  the  confession  of  his 
Apostle.  The  one  says,  “  Thou  art  the  Christ,”  that 
is,  the  anointed  one;  the  other,  “  Thou  art  Peter,” 
that  is,  the  Rock,  the  name  which  I  gave  thee  myself: 
my  own  title  with  which  I  invested  thee.  The  one 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  15 

adds,  “  The  Son  of  the  living  God  ”;  the  other  “  And 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,”  that  is,  as  it 
is  true  what  thou  confessest,  that  I  am  “  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,”  so  my  power  as  such  shall  be  shown  in 
building  my  Church  upon  thee  whom  I  have  named 
the  Rock,  “  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.”  Not  only  this,  but  I  will  unfold  to  thee 
the  full  meaning  of  thy  name,  and  declare  the  gifts 
which  accompany  it.  “  And  I  will  give  to  thee  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”1  It  was  written 
of  old  :  These  things  saith  the  holy  one  and 
the  true  one,  he  that  hath  the  key  of  David;  he  that 
openeth  and  no  man  shutteth;  shutteth  and  no  man 
openeth.”  As  he  gave  to  thee  to  share  his  name  of 
the  Rock,  so  he  shall  give  to  thee  to  bear  in  his  name 
his  own  symbol  of  supreme  dominion,  the  key  which 
opens  or  shuts  the  true  city  of  David.  All  ages  shall 
own  thee,  all  nations  acknowledge  thee,  as  The  Bearer 
of  the  Keys.  As  long  as  my  Church  shall  last,  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail,  thy  office  shall 
last  too;  as  long  as  there  are  souls  to  be  saved,  they 
shall  pass  by  thy  ministry  into  the  gate  of  the  Church. 
And  further,  as  long  as  there  need  in  my  spiritual 
kingdom  laws  to  be  promulgated,  precepts  issued,  sins 
forgiven,  “  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth, 
it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven.” 

Who,  indeed,  can  adequately  express  the  gifts 
which  the  world’s  Creator  and  Redeemer  here  promises 
to  his  favoured  servant  ?  Thus  in  the  fourth  century 
St  Chrysostom  labours  to  set  them  forth:  “  See  how 

1  Apoc.  iii  7. 


1 6  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

he  raises  Peter  to  a  higher  opinion  of  himself;  and 
reveals  and  shows  himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by 
these  two  promises.  For  what  belongs  to  God  alone, 
to  loose  sins,  and  to  render  the  Church  immovable 
in  such  an  assault  of  waves,  and  to  make  a  fisherman 
more  solid  than  any  rock,  when  the  whole  world  was 
at  war  with  him,  these  are  what  he  promises  to  give 
him;  as  the  Father,  addressing  Jeremias,  said,  *  I  have 
made  thee  an  iron  pillar  and  a  wall/  but  him  to  one 
nation,  whereas  the  other  to  the  whole  world.  Will¬ 
ingly  would  I  ask  those  who  wish  to  diminish  the 
dignity  of  the  Son,  which  are  the  greatest  gifts,  those 
which  the  Father  gave  to  Peter,  or  those  which  the 
Son.  For  the  Father  bestowed  on  Peter  the  revelation 
of  the  Son;  but  the  Son  disseminated  that  of  the 
Father  and  of  himself  through  the  whole  world;  and 
put  into  the  hands  of  a  mortal  man  power  over  all  things 
in  heaven ,  when  he  gave  the  keys  to  him  who  extended 
the  Church  through  the  whole  world,  and  showed  it 
to  be  firmer  than  the  heaven/’1  And  not  many  years 
later  St  Leo  says,  “  That  which  the  truth  ordered 
remains ;  and  blessed  Peter,  persisting  in  that  strength 
of  the  rock  which  he  received,  has  not  deserted  the 
guidance,  once  undertaken,  of  the  Church.  For  thus 
was  he  set  before  the  rest,  that  while  he  is  called  the 
Rock,  while  he  is  declared  to  be  the  foundation,  while 
he  is  appointed  the  door-keeper  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  while  he  is  advanced  to  be  the  judge  of  what 
shall  be  bound  and  what  loosed,  with  the  condition 
that  his  sentence  shall  be  ratified  even  in  heaven,  we 
might  learn  through  the  very  mysteries  of  the  names  given 
1  St  Chrys.  in  Matt,  xvi,  Horn.  54. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  hie  office  17 

to  him ,  how  he  was  associated  with  Christ”1  This 
association  passed,  indeed,  into  the  very  mind  of  the 
Church,  for  among  all  the  titles  given  by  fathers  and 
councils  and  liturgies  to  Peter,  and  expressing  his 
prerogatives,  the  one  contained  in  this  name  is  the 
most  frequent.  Thus  he  is  termed  “  the  rock  of  the 
Church,”2  “  the  rock  of  the  Church  that  was  to  be 
built,”3  “  underlying  the  building  of  the  Church,”4 
“  receiving  on  himself  the  building  of  the  Church,”5 
“  the  immovable  rock,”6  “  the  rock  which  the  proud 
gates  of  hell  prevail  not  against,”7  “  the  most  solid 
rock,”8  “  he  to  whom  the  Lord  granted  the  participa¬ 
tion  of  his  own  title,  the  rock,”9  “  the  foundation 
second  from  Christ,”10  “  the  great  foundation  of  the 
Church,”11  “  the  foundation  and  basis,”12  “  founding 
the  Church  by  his  firmness,”13  “  the  support  of  the 

1  St  Leo,  Serm.  3. 

2  Hilary  in  Matt,  xv,  n.  6;  in  Ps.  cxxxi,  n.  4;  de  Trin., 
1.  6,  n.  20.  Gregory  Naz.  Orat.  26,  p.  453.  Ambrose, 
St  Amb.  Retract,  lib.  1,  c.  21,  St  Aug. 

3  Tertullian  de  Monogam.,  c.  8.  Origen  in  Ps.  1, 
Eusebii,  Hist.,  1.  6,  c.  25.  Cyprian,  Ep.  71,  Fir- 
milian,  74. 

4  Basil  cont.Eunom.,  lib. 2,  n.  4.  Zeno,  lib. 2,  tract.  13, n.  2. 

6  By  the  same. 

6  Epiphan.  Hasr.  59,  n.  7. 

7  Aug.  in.  Ps.  cont.  par.  Donati.  Leo,  serm.  98. 

8  Theodoret,  ep.  77. 

9  Maximus  of  Turin,  Serm.  pro  natali  Petri  et  Pauli. 

10  Greg.  Nazian.  in  Horn,  archieratico  inserta. 

11  Origen  in  Exod.  horn.  5,  n.  4. 

12  Gallican  Sacramentary,  edited  by  Mabillon,  t.  i,  Mus. 
Ital.,  p.  343.  Synod  of  Ephesus,  Act  3. 

3  Peter  Chrysologus,  serm.  154.  ' 


2 


1 8  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Church,”1  “  the  Apostle  in  whom  is  the  Church’s 
support,”2  “  the  support  of  the  faith,”3  “  the  pillar 
of  the  Church,”4  and  by  an  authority  sufficient 
alone  to  terminate  all  controversy,  the  great  Council 
of  Chalcedon,5  “  the  rock  and  foundation  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  the  basis  of  the  orthodox 
faith.” 

Thus,  then,  we  have  the  name  of  Peter  first  pro¬ 
mised,  next  conferred,  then  explained.  And  further 
light  will  be  shed  on  this  by  the  consideration  of  the 
purpose  for  which  names  in  Holy  Writ  were  bestowed 
by  divine  command  on  individuals,  or  their  former 
names  changed. 

Now,  of  names  opposed  in  Scripture  there  would 
seem  to  be  three  classes.  The  first  and  most  common 
are  commemorative ,  and  are  for  the  purpose  of  record¬ 
ing  and  handing  down  to  posterity  remarkable  facts. 
Such  are  Peleg,  “  because  in  his  days  the  earth  was 
divided  ”;  Isaac,  from  the  laughter  of  his  father  and 
mother;  Issachar,  a  reward;  Manasses,  “  God  hath 
made  me  to  forget  my  labours”;  Ephraim,  “God 
hath  made  me  to  grow  ”;6  and  a  multitude  of 
others. 

The  second  class  may  be  termed  significative ,  being 
imposed  to  distinguish  their  bearers  from  others  by 

1  Ambrose  de  Virginitate,  c.  16. 

2  Ambrose  in  Luc.,  lib.  iv,  n.  70. 

3  Chrysostom,  Horn.,  tom.  iii,  p.  4. 

4  Philip,  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See,  in  Act  3  of  Council  of 
Ephesus. 

5  Council  of  Chalcedon,  Act  3. 

6  Gen.  x  25;  xvii  19;  xxx  18;  xli  51,  52. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  19 

some  quality.  Such  are  Jacob,  the  supplanter; 
Esau,  Edom,  the  red;  Moses,  the  taken  or  saved; 
Maccabeus;  Boanerges.1 

The  third  and  highest  class  are  prophetic ,  and  as 
such  evidently  can  be  imposed  by  God  alone,  who 
foresees  the  future.  They  are  twofold:  (1)  Those 
which  fore-signify  events  concerning  not  so  much 
their  bearers  as  others:  such  are  Shear-jashub,  “  the 
remnant  shall  return”;  Jezrael,  “I  will  visit”; 
Lo-ruhamah,  “not  pitied”;  Lo-ammi,  “not  my 
people.”  (2)  Those  which  point  out  the  office  and 
destiny  of  their  bearers;  such  as  Noe,  rest;  Israel, 
a  prince  before  God;  Josue,  saviour;  Sarah,  princess; 
John,  in  whom  there  is  grace;  and,  after  the  divine 
name  of  Jesus,  “  who  saves  his  people  from  their 
sins,”2  Abraham,  and  Cephas,  or  Peter.  These  two 
neither  commemorate  a  past  event,  nor  signify  a 
quality  or  ornament  already  possessed,  but  are  wholly 
prophetic,  inasmuch  as  they  shadow  out  the  dignity 
to  which  the  leaders  of  the  two  covenants  are  divinely 
marked  out  by  the  very  imposition  of  their  name. 

For  it  will  perhaps  bring  out  the  pre-eminence  and 
superior  authority  of  Peter,  if  we  consider  the  very 
close  remembrance  and  almost  identity  of  the  dis¬ 
pensation  into  which  God  entered  with  Abraham, 
and  that  which  Christ  gave  to  Peter.  But  first  we 
must  observe  how  the  more  remarkable  things  occur¬ 
ring  in  the  New  Testament  were  foretold  by  types, 

1  Gen.  xxv  26;  xxvii  36;  xxv  25;  xxv  30;  Exod.  ii  10; 
1  Macc.  ii  4;  Mark  iii  17. 

2  Isa.  vii  3;  Os.  i  4,  6,  9;  Gen.  v  29;  xxxii  28;  Num. 
xiii  17;  Gen.  xvii  15;  Matt,  iii  1. 


20 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


images,  parallelisms,  and  distinct  prophecies  in  the 
Old.  How1  both  our  Lord,  the  Evangelists,  and  the 
Apostles  take  pains  to  point  out  the  close  agreement 
between  the  two  covenants;  how  the  ancient  ecclesi¬ 
astical  writers  do  the  like  in  their  contests  with  early 
heretics,  or  in  recommending  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
faith  either  to  Jew  or  Gentile.  They  considered 
scarcely  any  proof  of  the  Gospel  superior  to  that  which 
might  be  drawn  by  grave  and  solid  inference  from  the 
anticipation  of  Christian  truths  in  the  old  covenant. 
Now,  among  such  truths,  what  concerns  Peter  is  surely 
of  signal  importance,  as  it  affects  the  whole  judgement 
on  the  form  of  government  which  our  Lord  instituted 
for  his  Church. 

Again,  it  may  be  taken  as  an  axiom  that,  as  a  simili¬ 
tude  of  causes  is  inferred  from  a  similitude  of  effects, 
so  a  resemblance  of  the  divine  counsels  may  be  inferred 
from  a  resemblance  of  exterior  manifestations.  As 
effects  are  so  many  steps  by  which  we  rise  to  the 
knowledge  and  discernment  of  causes,  so  divine  mani¬ 
festations  are  tokens  which  unfold  God’s  eternal 
decrees.  Thus  if  the  series  of  dealings  which  con¬ 
stitute  God’s  dispensation  to  Abraham  be  very  much 
like  that  other  series  in  which  the  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament  set  forth  the  dispensation  given  to 
Peter,  we  may  conclude,  first,  that  the  two  dispensa¬ 
tions  may  be  compared;  and,  secondly,  that  from  their 
resemblance,  a  resemblance  in  the  divine  purpose 
may  be  deduced. 

First,2  then,  “  God  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers 
manners,  speaking  to  the  fathers  ”  of  that  covenant 
1  Passaglia,  p.  51.  2  Ibid .,  p.  52. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


21 


of  grace,  into  which  he  had  already  entered  with  our 
first  parents,  said  to  Abram,  “  Go  forth  out  of  thy 
country,  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  out  of  thy  father’s 
house,  and  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great  nation.”  But 
when  in  the  last  days  he  began  to  fulfil  that  covenant, 
and  to  declare  his  will  by  his  Son,  Jesus  said  to  Simon 
and  Andrew,  “  Follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you  to 
become  fishers  of  men,”  and  to  Simon  specially, 
“  Fear  not,  for  henceforth  thou  shalt  catch  men.”1 

Abram  hearkened  to  God  calling  him:  “  So  Abram 
went  out  as  the  Lord  had  commanded  him”;  and 
Simon  as  readily  obeyed  Christ’s  vocation:  “  And 
immediately  leaving  their  nets  they  followed  Him.”2 

God  rewarded  Abraham’s  obedience  by  the  promise 
of  a  new  name:  “  Neither  shall  thy  name  be  called 
any  more  Abram,  but  thou  shalt  be  called  Abraham.” 
So  Christ  honoured  Simon,  saying,  “  Thou  art 
Simon,  the  son  of  Jonas  ;  thou  shalt  be  called 
Cephas.”3 

No  sooner  had  God  unfolded  the  dignity  shadowed 
forth  in  the  promised  name,  and  bestowed  that 
dignity  on  Abraham,  than  he  required  of  him  a  signal 
instance  of  faith  and  love:  “  God  tempted  Abraham, 
and  said  to  him,  Take  thy  son,  thine  only  begotten, 
whom  thou  lovest,  and  offer  him  for  a  holocaust.”  So 
Christ  required  of  Simon  a  proof  of  faith  and  of 
superior  love  before  he  either  unfolded  the  excellence 
of  the  promised  name,  or  adorned  him  with  that 
excellency:  “  He  saith  to  them,  Whom  say  ye  that 

1  Gen.  xii  i ;  Mark  i  16,  17;  Luke  v  10. 

2  Gen.  xii  4;  Mark  i  18. 

3  Gen.  xvii  5 ;  John  i  42. 


22  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

I  am  ?”  “  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  more 
than  these  P”1 

And  both  were  no  less  ready  to  show  the  fortitude 
of  their  faith  and  love  than  they  had  been  ready  to 
follow  the  divine  calling.  For,  “  Abraham  stretched 
forth  his  hand,  and  took  the  sword  to  sacrifice  his 
son  ”;  and  “  Simon  Peter  answering,  said,  Thou  art 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God  and  again, 
“  Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.”2 

Then,  as  the  bestowal  of  the  new  name  was  the 
reward  of  the  obedience  with  which  each  had  followed 
his  vocation,  so  God,  moved  by  their  remarkable 
ensuing  faith  and  charity,  explained  the  dignity  con¬ 
tained  in  that  name,  and  bestowed  it  when  so  explained. 
The  following  refers  to  the  explanation:  “  By  myself 
have  I  sworn,  because  thou  hast  done  this  thing,” 
and  “  Because  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  to 
thee,  but  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  say 
unto  thee.” 

But  as  to  the  dignity  bestowed,  it  should  be  re¬ 
marked  that  it  is  divine,  and  communicated  to  each 
with  this  resemblance:  First,  that  Abraham  thereby 
becomes  the  source  and  parent  of  all  the  faithful,  and 
Peter  their  base  and  foundation;  the  one,  the  author 
of  a  seed  which  should  equal  in  number  the  stars  of 
the  heaven  and  the  sand  of  the  sea;  the  other,  the  Rock 
of  the  Church,  which  should  embrace  all  nations, 
tribes,  and  languages.  God  says  to  Abraham,  “  And 
multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of 
heaven  and  as  the  sand  which  is  on  the  sea-shore.” 

1  Gen.  xxii  i ;  Matt,  xvi  15 ;  John  xxi  15. 

2  Gen.  xxi  10;  Matt,  xvi  16;  John  xxi  15. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  23 

But  Christ  to  Peter,  “  And  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  Church.”  Secondly ,  the  blessing  thus  bestowed 
from  above  upon  each  was  not  one  which  should  rest 
in  their  single  persons,  but  from  them  and  through 
them  should  be  extended  to  the  universal  posterity 
and  society  of  the  faithful;  so  that  all  who  should 
believe  to  the  consummation  of  time  should  gain 
through  them  blessing,  stability,  and  victory  over  the 
assault  of  enemies  and  the  gates  of  hell.  The  promise 
to  Abraham  is  clear:  “  Thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gate 
of  their  enemies,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  be  blessed  ”;  nor  less  so  to  Peter,  “  And 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.” 

But  the  high  excellence  of  this  dignity,  embracing, 
as  it  does,  the  whole  company  of  the  faithful,  was 
presignified  in  the  very  meaning  of  the  name  imposed. 
For  of  Abraham’s  name  we  read,  “  And  thy  name  shall 
be  Abraham,  for  a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made 
thee.”  Exactly  resembling  is  what  is  said  of  Peter’s 
appellation,  “  Thou  art  Peter,  the  Rock,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church.” 

Nay,  we  may  put  in  parallel  columns  the  two 
promises,  thus — 

1.  Thy  name  shall  be  1.  Thou  art  Peter. 
Abraham. 

2.  For  a  father  of  many  2.  And  upon  this  rock  I 
nations  have  I  made  thee.  will  build  My  Church. 

And  just  as  in  the  former  the  second  clause  contains 
the  reason  of  the  first,  so  in  the  latter  likewise  the 
two  clauses  cohere,  as  the  name  and  its  explanation. 
Again,  the  dignity  of  the  one  is  expressed- as  that 


24  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

of  the  Father ;  of  the  other  as  that  of  the  Rock.  Further, 
those  alone  can  share  the  blessing  of  Abraham,  who 
are  born  of  his  spirit;  and  those  alone  the  stability 
divinely  granted  to  Peter,  who  refuse  by  any  violence, 
or  at  any  cost,  to  be  separated  from  him. 

But  Abraham  was  thus  raised  to  be  the  friend  of 
God,  associated  in  the  divine  Fathership,  and  made 
the  teacher  of  posterity;  and  therefore,  as  being  such, 
God  would  show  him  his  counsels,  that  through  him 
they  might  descend  to  his  children.  “  And  the  Lord 
said,  Can  I  hide  from  Abraham  what  I  am  about  to 
do  ?  for  I  know  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him  to  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord.” 
In  a  precisely  similar  way,  when  God  would  call  the 
Gentiles  to  the  light  of  the  Gospel,  he  showed  it  by  a 
special  revelation  to  Peter  alone:  “  There  came  upon 
him  an  ecstasy  of  mind :  and  he  saw  the  heaven  opened ; 
and  this  was  done  thrice.”  And  the  reason  of  so 
preferring  Peter  was  God’s  decree,  that  through  him 
other  Christians,  even  the  Apostles  themselves,  might 
be  informed,  and  convinced.  “  You  know  that  in 
former  days  God  made  choice  among  us  that  by  my 
mouth  the  Gentiles  should  hear  the  word  of  the 
Gospel  and  believe.”  “  And  thou,  when  thou  art 
converted,  confirm  thy  brethren.”1 

Finally,  as  God  pronounces  Abraham  blest,  so 
Christ  pronounces  Peter :  and  as  he  made  Abraham  the 
source  and  fountain-head  of  blessing  and  strength 
to  all  others,  so  no  less  did  Christ  make  Peter.  Of 
the  first  we  read,  “  I  will  bless  thee,  and  will 
make  thy  name  great,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  bless- 
1  Gen.  xviii  17;  Acts  x  10;  xv  7;  Luke  xxii  32. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  25 

ing”;  of  the  second,  “Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar  Jona;”  and  “Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church.” 

In  one  word,  the  parallel  is  as  follows  between 
Abraham  and  Peter.  Both  receive  a  remarkable  call, 
and  follow  it;  both  are  promised  and  receive  a  new, 
and  that  a  prophetical  name ;  of  both  signal  instances 
of  faith  and  love  are  required;  both  furnish  these,  and 
therefore  do  not  lose  the  increase  of  their  reward.  To 
Abraham  his  prophetical  name  is  explained,  and  to 
Peter  likewise;  Abraham  understands  his  destination 
to  be  the  Father  of  all  nations,  and  Peter  that  he  is 
made  the  Rock  of  the  universal  Church;  Abraham  is 
called  blest,  and  so  Peter.  To  Abraham  it  is  revealed 
that  no  one,  save  from  him,  and  through  him,  shall 
share  the  heavenly  blessing;  to  Peter  that  all,  from 
him,  and  through  him,  shall  gain  strength  and  stability. 
It  is  only  through  Abraham  that  his  posterity  can 
promise  itself  victory  over  the  enemy,  and  only  through 
being  built  on  Peter,  the  Rock,  that  the  Church  will 
triumph  over  the  gates  of  hell.  Finally,  if  Abraham, 
as  the  teacher  of  the  faithful,  is  instructed  in  the 
divine  counsels  with  singular  care,  not  less  is  shown  to 
Peter,  whom  Christ  has  made  the  doctor  and  teacher 
of  all  believers. 

The  gifts  thus  bestowed  on  Abraham  and  Peter  are 
peculiar ,  for  they  are  read  of  no  one  else  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures;  they  are  not  only  gifts,  but  a  reward  for 
singular  merit ;  and  in  their  own  nature  they  cannot  be 
general.  As  by  them  Abraham  is  put  into  a  relation 
of  Father  ship,  so  that  all  the  faithful  become  his 
children,  so  Peter  being  called  and  made  the  rock  and 


26 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Foundation  of  the  Church,  all  its  members  have  a 
dependence  on  him. 

And  if  these  gifts  are  peculiar,  no  less  do  they  convey 
a  singular  dignity  and  pre-eminence.  For  it  follows 
that,  as  St  Paul  says,  all  the  faithful  are  children  of 
Abraham,1  being  heirs  not  of  his  flesh,  but  of  his 
spirit  and  faith;  so  no  one  is,  or  can  be,  a  part  of  the 
Church’s  building,  who  rests  not  on  Peter  as  the 
foundation.  For  the  same  God  who  said  to  Abraham, 
“  Thy  name  shall  no  longer  be  called  Abram,  but 
Abraham  shall  be  thy  name,”  said  also  to  Simon, 
“  Thou  shalt  not  be  called  Simon,  but  Cephas  ”;  the 
same  God  who  said  to  the  former,  “  In  thee  shall  all 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed,”  said  to  the  latter, 
“  Upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church.” 

What  is  the  source  of  this  pre-eminence  in  both  ? 
To  both  the  same  objection  may  be  made,  and  for 
both  the  same  defence. 

How  should  blessing  and  adoption  be  propagated 
from  Abraham,  as  a  sort  of  head,  into  the  whole  body 
of  the  faithful  ?  Because  Abraham  is  considered  as 
joined  with  that  mighty  Seed  his  offspring,  whence 
in  chief  and  primarily  the  salvation  of  all  depends; 
because  Abraham  is  made  by  participation  partner 
of  that  dignity  which  naturally  and  substantially  belongs 
to  the  Seed  that  was  to  spring  from  him.  God  himself 
has  told  us  this,  and  his  Apostle  St  Paul  explained  it. 
For  as  we  read  that  it  was  said  to  Abraham,  “  In  thee 
shall  all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,”  so  God 
himself  has  told  us  that  in  thee ,  by  thee ,  means  in,  by 
thy  seed.  Hence  St  Paul:  “  To  Abraham  were  the 

1  Gal.  iii  7. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  27 

promises  made,  and  to  his  seed.  He  saith  not,  seeds, 
as  of  many,  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is 
Christ. 5,1  So  that  the  divine  words,  “  In  thee  shall 
all  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,”  give  this  meaning: 
“  As  thou  shalt  give  flesh  to  my  only  begotten  Son 
whom  I  cherish  in  my  bosom,  whence  he  shall  be 
called  at  once  ‘  the  Son  of  God  and  the  son  of  Abra¬ 
ham,’2  so  he  makes  thee  a  partner  of  his  dignity  and 
excellence,  whence,  if  not  the  source  and  origin,  yet 
thou  shalt  be  a  broad  stream  of  blessing  to  be  poured 
out  on  all  nations.” 

Now,  just  in  the  same  manner  is  Peter  the  Rock  of 
the  Church,  and  the  cause  next  to  Christ  of  that 
firmness  with  which  the  Church  shall  remain  impreg¬ 
nable  to  the  end.  For  therefore  is  he  the  Rock  and 
Foundation  of  the  Church,  because  he  has  been  called 
into  a  sort  of  unity  with  him  of  whom  it  is  said,  “  Be¬ 
hold,  I  lay  in  Sion  a  chief  corner-stone,  elect,  precious, 
and  he  that  believeth  on  it  shall  not  be  ashamed  ”: 
and  in  whom,  as  Paul  explains,  “  the  whole  building 
fitly  framed  together  increaseth  unto  a  holy  temple 
in  the  Lord.”3  Therefore  is  he  the  Church’s  Rock, 
because  as  he,  by  his  own  confession,  declared  the 
Godhead  of  the  Foundation  in  chief,  “  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,”  so  from  him,  who 
is  the  chief  and  substantial  Foundation,  he  received 
the  gift  of  being  made  partner  in  one  and  the  same 
property:  “And  I  too  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church 
one  with  me  by  communication  of  my  office  and  charge, 
my  dignity  and  excellency.  Hence  the  stability  of 
1  Gal.  iii  16.  2  Matt,  i  1.  3  Isa.  xxviii  16;  Eph.  ii  21. 


28  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Peter  is  that  of  Christ,  as  the  splendour  of  the  ray  is 
that  of  the  sun;  Peter’s  dignity  that  of  Christ,  as  the 
river’s  abundance  is  the  abundance  of  the  fountain. 
Those  who  diminish  Peter’s  dignity  may  well  be 
charged  with  violating  the  majesty  of  Christ;  those 
who  are  hostile  to  Peter,  and  divorced  from  him, 
stand  in  the  like  opposition  to  Christ. 

Now,  this  parallel  is  an  answer1  to  those  who 
object  to  Peter’s  supereminence  as  the  Foundation, 
that  this  dignity  is  entirely  divine,  surpassing  by  an 
almost  infinite  degree  the  capacity  of  man.  For  is 
not  that  a  divine  dignity  which  consists  in  the  paternity 
of  all  the  faithful  ?  Is  not  that  prerogative  beyond 
man’s  capacity  by  which  one  becomes  the  author  of  a 
blessing  diffused  through  all  nations  ?  Yet  no  one 
denies  that  such  a  dignity  and  such  a  prerogative  were 
granted  to  Abraham.  In  divine  endowments,  there¬ 
fore,  their  full  and  natural  possession  must  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  their  limited  and  analogous  par¬ 
ticipation.  The  one,  as  inherent,  cannot  fall  to  the 
creature’s  lot;  the  other  as  transferable,  may  be  granted 
as  God  pleases.  For  what  further  removed  from 
man  than  the  Godhead  ?  Yet  it  is  written,  “  I  have 
said,  Ye  are  gods.”2 

Not  weightier  is  the  other  objection,  that  the  office  of 
being  the  Foundation  is  too  important  to  be  entrusted 
to  human  care.  Was  there  less  difficulty  in  blessing 
being  diffused  from  one  man  among  all  nations  ? 
Rather  we  must  look  on  man  not  as  he  is  by,  and  of, 
himself,  apart  from  God,  and  left  to  his  own  weakness, 
but  as  upborne  by  divine  power,  according  to  the 

1  Passaglia,  p.  58.  2  Ps.  Ixxxii  6,  with  John  x  34. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


29 


promise,  “  Behold,  I  am  with  you  all  days,  until  the 
consummation  of  the  world.”  Who  can  doubt  that 
man,  in  union  with  God,  may  serve  for  a  foundation, 
and  discharge  those  offices  in  which  the  unity  of  a 
structure  consists  ?  It  is  confidently  and  constantly 
objected,  that  “  other  foundation  no  man  can  lay 
besides  that  which  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ.”1 
As  if  what  has  been  laid  by  Christ  himself,  and  consists 
in  the  virtue  of  Christ  alone,  can  be  thought  other 
than  Christ;  or  as  if  it  were  unusual,  or  unscriptural, 
for  things  proper  to  Christ  to  be  participated  by  men. 
Therefore  the  chief  difficulties  against  Peter’s  pre¬ 
eminence,  and  character  as  the  Foundation,  seem  to 
spring  from  the  mind  failing  to  realize  the  supernatural 
order  instituted  by  God,  and  the  perpetual  presence 
of  Christ  watching  over  his  Church. 

Thus  it  is  no  derogation  to  Abraham’s  being  the 
Father  of  the  faithful,  or  to  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church 
instituted  by  Christ  himself,  that  our  Lord  says, 
“  Call  none  your  father  upon  earth,  for  one  is  your 
Father  who  is  in  heaven”;2  inasmuch  as  Scripture 
abundantly  proves  that  divine  gifts  are  richly  conferred 
upon  men.  What  more  divine  than  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
Yet  it  is  written,  “  And  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he 
shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may  abide 
with  you  for  ever.”3  What  a  higher  privilege  than 
filial  adoption  ?  Yet  it  is  said,  “  Ye  have  received  the 
spirit  of  filial  adoption,  by  which  we  cry,  Abba, 
Father.”4  What  a  greater  treasure  than  co-inheritance 
with  Christ  ?  Yet  we  read,  “  But  if  children,  also 

2  Matt,  xxiii  9. 

4  Rom.  viii  15. 


1  Cor.  iii  11. 

3  John  xiv  16. 


30  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

heirs:  heirs  of  God,  but  joint  heirs  with  Christ.5’1 
What  higher  than  the  vision  of  God  ?  Yet  St  Paul 
bears  witness,  “We  see  now  through  a  glass  darkly, 
but  then  face  to  face.5’2  What  more  wonderful  than 
the  power  of  remitting  sins  ?  Yet  this  very  power 
is  granted  to  the  Apostles:  “  Whose  sins  you  shall 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven  them.553  What  further  from 
human  weakness  than  the  power  of  working  miracles  ? 
Yet  Christ  establishes  this,  “  Amen,  amen,  I  say  unto 
you,  he  that  believeth  on  me,  the  works  which  I  do 
shall  he  do  also,  and  greater  works  than  these  shall  he 
do.”4  Indeed,  the  participation  and  communion  of 
heavenly  gifts  have  the  closest  coherence  with  that 
supernatural  order,  which  God  in  creating  man  chose, 
and  to  which  he  called  fallen  man  back  through  his 
only  begotten  Son;  with  that  dispensation  of  Christ 
by  which  he  loved  the  Apostles  as  he  himself  was 
loved  by  the  Father,  by  which  he  called  them,  not 
servants,  but  friends,”6  and  gave  them  that  glory 
which  he  had  himself  received  from  the  Father.  And 
the  tone  of  mind  which  denies  Peter’s  prerogative 
as  the  Foundation  of  the  Church,  under  pretence  that 
it  is  a  usurpation  of  divine  power,  tends  to  deny  some 
one  or  all  of  the  privileges  just  cited,  and,  as  a  fact, 
does  deny  some  of  them.  It  is  wonderful  to  see  how 
only  common  and  vulgar  things  are  discerned  by 
modem  eyes,  where  the  Fathers  saw  celestial  and 
divine  gifts.6  Those  without  the  Church  have  fallen 
away  as  well  from  the  several  parts  and  privileges, 

1  Rom.  viii  17.  2  1  Cor.  xiii  12.  3  John  xx  23. 

4  John  xiv  12.  5  John  xv  9,  15. 

6  Passaglia,  p.  442,  n.  28. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  31 

from  what  may  be  called  the  standing  order  of  the 
Incarnation,  as  from  its  final  purpose  and  scope;  and 
it  is  much  if  they  would  not  charge  with  blasphemy 
that  glorious  saying  put  forth  by  the  greatest  of  the 
Eastern,  as  by  the  greatest  of  the  Western  Fathers, 
“  that  God  became  man,  in  order  that  man  might 
become  God.”1 

Was,  then,  St  Chrysostom  wrong  when  he  said  that 
our  Lord,  in  that  passage  of  Matthew,  showed  a 
power  equal  to  God  the  Father  by  the  gifts  which  he 
bestowed  on  a  poor  fisherman  ?  “He  who  gave  to 
him  the  keys  of  the  heavens,  and  made  him  Lord  of 
such  power,  and  needed  not  prayer  for  this,  for  he  did 
not  then  say,  I  prayed,  but,  with  authority,  I  will  build 
my  Church,  and  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  heaven.”2 
Was  he  wrong  when  he  called  him  “  the  chosen  of  the 
Apostles,  the  mouth-piece  of  the  disciples,  the  head 
of  the  band,  the  ruler  over  the  brethren  ?”3  or  where 
he  saw  these  prerogatives  in  the  very  name  of  Peter, 
observing,  “  When  I  say  Peter,  I  mean  the  impreg¬ 
nable  rock,  the  immovable  foundation,  the  great 
Apostle,  the  first  of  the  disciples  ?”4 

To  sum  up,  then,  what  has  been  hitherto  said,  we 
have  advanced  so  far  as  this:  first  the  promise,  and 
then  the  bestowal  of  a  new  name,  expressing  a  singular 
pre-eminence,  and  in  its  proper  sense  befitting  Christ 

1  '0  toC  Geou  A670S  £vr)vdp&Trr]<T€i>  'tv a  yfxels  QeoiroLrjddixev.  St 

Athan.  de  Incarn.  Factus  est  Deus  homo,  ut  homo 
fieret  deus.  St  Aug.,  Serm.  13,  de  Temp. 

2  St  Chrys.,  tom.  vii  786.  Horn.  82,  in  Matt. 

3  Tom.  viii  525.  Horn.  88  in  Joan. 

4  Horn.  3,  de  Pcenitentia.  Tom.  ii  300. 


32  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

alone,  have  distinguished  Simon  from  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles.  But  much  more  the  power  signified  by  that 
name,  and  explained  by  the  Lord  himself,  carries  far 
higher  Peter’s  privilege,  and  indicates  him  to  be  the 
possessor  of  authority  over  the  Apostles.  For  if 
Simon  is  the  Rock  of  the  Church,  and  if  the  property 
of  Foundation,  on  which  the  structure  of  the  Church 
rests,  belongs  to  him  immediately  after  Christ,  and 
analogously  with  Christ,  there  arises  this  relation 
between  Christ  and  Simon,  that  as  he  is  first,  and 
chiefly,  and  by  inherent  power,  so  Simon  is  second¬ 
arily,  by  participation  and  analogy,  that  which  under¬ 
lies,  holds  together,  and  supports  the  Apostles  and  the 
whole  fabric  of  the  Church. 

Now  such  a  relation  carries  with  it  not  merely 
precedency  of  honour,  but  superior  authority.  The 
strength  of  the  Apostles  lay  in  their  union  with  Christ* 
and  subordination  to  Him.  The  like  necessity  of 
adhering  to  Peter  is  expressed  in  his  new  name. 
Take  away  that  subordination,  and  you  destroy  the 
very  image  by  which  the  Lord  chose  to  express  Peter’s 
dignity;  and  you  remove,  likewise,  Peter’s  participa¬ 
tion  in  that  property  which  the  Lord  communicated 
to  him  in  the  name  of  the  Rock.  For  if  the  Apostles 
needed  not  to  be  joined  with  him,  he  had  no  title  to 
be  called  the  Foundation;  and  if  he  had  no  co-active 
power  over  the  Apostles,  he  did  not  share  the  property 
by  which  Christ  is  the  Rock  and  Foundation.  Thus 
the  name,  and  the  dignity  expressed  by  the  name, 
show  Peter  to  have  been  singly  invested  by  the  Lord 
with  both  honour  and  power  superior  to  the  Apostles.1 

1  Passaglia,  pp.  48,  49. 


CHAPTER  II 


EDUCATION  AND  FINAL  DESIGNATION  OF 
PETER  TO  BE  THE  RULER  WHO  SHOULD 
CONFIRM  HIS  BRETHREN 

Having  promised1  and  bestowed  on  Simon  a  new 
name,  prophetic  of  the  peculiar  position  which  he 
was  to  occupy  in  the  Church,  and  having  set  forth 
the  meaning  contained  in  that  name  in  terms  so  large 
and  magnificent  that,  as  we  have  seen,  the  greatest 
Saints  and  Fathers  have  felt  it  impossible  to  exhaust 
their  force,  our  Lord  proceeded  to  educate  Peter,  so 
to  say,  for  his  especial  charge  of  supreme  ruler.  He 
bestowed  upon  him,  in  the  course  of  his  ministry, 
tokens  of  preference  which  agree  with  the  title  thus 
solemnly  conferred;  and  he  instructed  him  with  all 
the  care  which  we  should  expect  to  be  given  to  one 
who  was  to  become  the  chief  doctor  of  Christians. 
Such  instruction  may  be  said  to  consist  in  two  things : 
a  more  complete  knowledge  of  the  Christian  revela¬ 
tion,  and  a  singular  apprehension  of  its  divine  proofs. 

Now,  innumerable  as  are  the  particulars  in  which 
the  Christian  revelation  consists,  they  may  yet  be 
gathered  up  mainly  in  two  points,  which  meet  in  the 
person  of  our  Lord,  and  are  termed  by  the  ancient 
Fathers  who  have  followed  this  division,  the  Theology , 
and  the  Economy .  There  is  the  Divine  Nature,  that 

1  Passaglia,  p.  68. 

33 


3 


34  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

“  form  of  God,"  which  our  Lord  had  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father;  and  there  is  the 
human  nature,  that  “form  of  a  servant  ,”  which  “  in 
the  economy  or  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times  ” 
he  assumed,  in  order  that  he  might  purchase  the 
Church  with  his  blood,  and  “  re-establish  all  things 
in  heaven  and  on  earth.”1  All,  therefore,  in  the 
Christian  faith  which  concerns  “  the  form  of  God  ” 
is  termed  the  Theology;  all  which  contemplates  “  the 
form  of  a  servant ,”  the  Economy. 

But  the  heavenly  origin  and  certain  truth  of  both 
these  parts  of  Christian  faith  are  proved  partly  by  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy,  and  partly  by  the  working  of 
miracles.  To  both  our  Lord  perpetually  appealed,  and 
his  Apostles  after  him,  and  those  who  have  followed 
them.  One,  then,  who  was  to  be  the  chief  ruler  and 
doctor  of  Christians,  needed  especial  instruction  in  the 
theology  and  economy,  especial  assurance  of  the 
fulfilment  of  prophecy,  and  the  working  of  miraculous 
power.  Now  Peter  was  specially  selected  for  this 
instruction  and  that  assurance. 

The  whole  teaching  of  our  Lord,  indeed,  and  the 
innumerable  acts  of  power  and  words  of  grace  with 
which  it  was  fraught,  were  calculated  to  convey  these 
to  all  the  Apostles.  But  while  they  were  witnesses 
in  common  of  that  teaching  in  general,  some  parts  of 
it  were  disclosed  only  to  Peter  and  the  two  sons  of 
Zebedee.  Perhaps  there  is  no  incident  in  the  Gospel 
history,  which  set  forth  in  so  lively  a  manner,  and  so 
convincingly  proved,  the  mysteries  concerning  the 
union  of  “  the  form  of  God  ”  and  “  the  form  of  a 

1  Eph.  i  io. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  35 

servant,”  as  the  Transfiguration.  After  long  years 
Peter  recalled  that  manifestation  in  proof  that  he 
and  his  brethren  had  not  taught  “  cunningly  devised 
fables,  when  they  made  known  the  power  and  presence 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  had  been  eye-witnesses 
of  his  majesty.  They  had  heard  the  voice  coming 
down  to  him  from  the  excellent  glory,  ‘  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  have  pleased  myself:  hear  ye 
him/  And  this  voice  we  heard  brought  from  heaven, 
when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount.”  Among 
all  the  Apostle’s  experience  of  the  three  years’  ministry, 
by  the  shore  and  on  the  waves  of  the  lake  of  Galilee,  in 
the  cornfields  or  on  the  mountain  side,  in  the  noonday 
heat  or  midnight  storm,  even  in  the  throng  which 
cried  “  Hosanna  !”  and  “  Crucify  him  !”  this  stood 
out,  until  “  the  laying  aside  of  his  fleshly  tabernacle,” 
as  “  the  Lord  had  signified  to  him.”1  For2  what 
indeed  was  not  there  ? — the  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Godhead,  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  true,  and  not 
adopted,  Sonship  of  the  latter,  his  divine  mission  unto 
men;  the  new  order  of  things  resulting  from  it,  and 
the  summing  up  under  one  head  of  all  things  in  heaven 
and  in  earth;  the  sealing  up  and  accomplishing  of  the 
law  and  the  prophets,  by  the  presence  of  their  repre¬ 
sentatives,  Moses  and  Elias,  a  most  wonderful  and 
transporting  miracle;  and  the  command  implicitly  to 
obey  him  in  whom  the  Father  was  well  pleased.  Thus 
the  Transfiguration  may  be  termed  the  summing  up 
of  the  whole  Christian  revelation. 

But  now  of  this  we  read  that  “  after  six  days  Jesus 
taketh  unto  him  Peter ,  and  James,  and  John  his 
1  2  Pet.  i  14.  2  Passaglia,  p.  69. 


36  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

brother,  and  bringeth  them  up  into  a  high  mountain 
apart.”  These  three  alone  of  the  twelve.  Yet  does 
he  not  associate  the  sons  of  Zebedee  with  Peter  in  this 
privilege  ?  Needful  no  doubt  it  was  that  so  splendid 
an  act  should  have  a  suitable  number  of  witnesses, 
and  that  as  His  future  glory  should  have  three  witnesses 
from  heaven,  and  as  many  from  earth,1  so  this,  its 
rudimental  beginning,  should  be  attested  by  three  as 
from  heaven,  God  the  Father,  Moses,  and  Elias,  and 
by  three  from  earth,  Peter,  James,  and  John.  Dear 
to  him,  likewise,  next  to  Peter,  and  most  privileged 
after  Peter,  were  the  sons  of  Zebedee;  yet  a  distinction 
is  seen  in  the  mode  in  which  they  are  treated  even 
when  joined  together  in  so  great  a  privilege.  For 
in  all  the  three  accounts  Peter  is  named  first:  “  He 
taketh  to  him  Peter,  and  James,  and  John.”  They 
likewise  are  called  by  their  birth-name,  he  by  his 
prophetic  appellation  of  the  Rock;  they  are  silent,  but 
he  speaks:  “  Peter  answering,  said  ”;  nor  only  speaks 
but  in  the  name  of  all:  “  It  is  good  for  us  to  be  here,” 
as  if  their  leader.  And,  fifthly,  he  is  named  specially, 
they  as  his  companions:  “  but  Peter,  and  they  that  were 
with  him ,  were  heavy  with  sleep.”2  Thus  even  when 
three  are  associated  in  a  special  privilege  above  the 
twelve,  Peter  is  distinguished  among  the  three. 

But  if  there  was  one  other  occasion  on  which  above 
all  “  the  form  of  the  servant  ”  was  to  be  set  forth  in 
the  most  awful,  and  the  most  endearing  light,  it  was 
on  that  evening,  “  the  hour  ”  of  evil  men  and  “  the 
power  of  darkness,”  when  “  the  righteous  servant 
who  should  justify  many  ”  was  about  to  perform  the 
1  1  John  v  6,  7.  3  Luke  ix  32. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  37 

great  central,  crowning  act  of  his  mediation.  Then 
we  read  that  “  He  said  to  his  disciples,  Sit  you  here, 
till  I  go  yonder  and  pray/’1  And  then  immediately 
“  taking  with  him  Peter,  and  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee, 
he  began  to  grow  sorrowful  and  to  be  sad.”  Yet  here 
again,  even  in  the  association  with  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
Simon  is  distinguished,  for  he  is  named  first;  and  by 
the  illustrious  name  of  Peter,  the  Rock;  and  as  the 
leader  of  the  others,  for,  says  Matthew,  Christ  after 
his  first  prayer  “  comes  to  his  disciples,  and  finds 
them  sleeping,  and  says  to  Peter ,  What,  could  ye  not 
watch  with  me  one  hour  ?”  Why  the  change  of 
number,  Peter  in  the  singular,  ye  in  the  plural  ?  Why 
the  blame  of  Peter,  involving  the  blame  of  the  rest  ? 
Because  the  members  are  censured  in  the  head. 

In  these  two  signal  instances  our  Lord,  while 
preferring  Peter  and  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee  to  the 
rest  of  the  Twelve,  yet  marks  a  gradation  likewise 
between  them  and  Peter.  And  these  two  set  forth  the 
theology  and  economy,  in  the  most  emphatic  manner. 

And  as  the  supreme  preceptor  must  not  only  be 
acquainted  with  the  truth  which  he  has  to  deliver, 
but  with  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests,  so  is  Peter 
specially  made  a  witness  of  his  Lord’s  “  power  and 
presence  ”  and  “  the  works  which  no  other  man  did.” 
In  that  remarkable  miracle  of  raising  to  life  the  daughter 
of  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  we  read:  “  He  admitted 
not  any  man  to  follow  him,  but  Peter  and  James,  and 
John  the  brother  of  James  ”;2  where,  as  before,  and 
always,  Peter  is  mentioned  first,  and  by  the  prophetic 
name  of  his  Primacy. 

1  Matt,  xxvi  36. 


2  Mark  v  35. 


38  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

From1  all  which  we  gather  four  points:  1.  Several 
things  are  mentioned  in  the  Gospels  which  Christ 
gave  to  Peter,  and  not  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles. 
2.  But  nothing  which  he  gave  to  them  together,  and 
not  to  Peter  with  them.  3.  What  he  seemed  to  give 
to  them  in  common,  yet  accrues  to  Peter  in  a  special 
manner,  who  appears  among  the  Apostles  not  as  one 
out  of  the  number,  but  their  destined  head,  by  the 
name,  that  is,  of  Peter,  so  markedly  promised,  bestowed, 
and  so  wonderfully  explained  by  our  Lord.  Of  this 
name,  as  we  have  seen,  St  Chrysostom,  an  Eastern 
patriarch,  as  well  as  a  great  Saint  and  Father,  observed, 
“  When  I  say  Peter,  I  mean  the  impregnable  Rock,  the 
immovable  Foundation,  the  great  Apostle,  the  first 
of  the  disciples.”  4.  Either  we  are  not  to  take  Christ’s 
dealing  as  the  standard  of  Peter’s  dignity  and  destina¬ 
tion,  or  we  must  admit  that  he  was  preferred  to  the 
rest,  and  made  the  supreme  teacher  of  the  faithful. 

St  Matthew  records  the  incidents  of  the  officers 
asking  for  the  payment  of  the  didrachma  which  all  the 
children  of  Israel  were  bound  to  contribute  to  the 
Temple;  and  his  words  show  us  a  fresh  instance  of 
honour  done  to  Peter,  and  a  fresh  note  of  his  superiority. 
“  When  they  were  come  to  Capharnaum,  they  that 
received  the  didrachma  came  to  Peter,  and  said  to  him, 
Doth  not  your  Master  pay  the  didrachma  ?”2  But 
why  should  they  come  to  him ,  and  ask,  not  if  his 
Master,  but  “  your  ”  Master,  the  Master  of  all  the 
Apostles,  paid  the  census,  save  that  it  was  apparent, 
even  to  strangers,  that  Peter  was  the  first,  and  most 
prominent  of  the  company  ?  Why  use  him  rather 
1  Passaglia,  p.  72.  2  Matt,  xvii  23. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  39 

than  any  of  the  others,  for  the  purpose  of  approaching 
Christ  ?  “As  Peter  seemed  to  be  the  first  of  the 
disciples, 5 ’  says  St  Chrysostom,  on  the  text,  “  they  go 
to  him.”  The  context  naturally  suggests  this  reason, 
and  the  ancient  commentators  remarked  it.  But  what 
follows  is  much  more  striking.  Peter  answered,  Yes, 
that  is,  that  his  Master  observed  all  the  laws  of  Moses, 
and  this  among  the  number.  As  he  went  home  he 
purposed,  no  doubt,  to  ask  our  Lord  about  this  pay¬ 
ment,  but  “  when  he  was  come  into  the  house  Jesus 
prevented  him,”  having  in  his  omniscience  seen  and 
heard  all  that  had  passed,  and  he  proceeded  to  speak 
words  involving  his  own  high  dignity,  followed  by  a 
singular  trial  of  Peter’s  faith,  and  as  marked  a  reward 
of  it  when  tried.  “  What  thinkest  thou,  Simon  ? 
The  kings  of  the  earth,  of  whom  do  they  receive  tribute 
or  custom  ?  of  their  own  children  or  of  strangers  ? 
And  he  said,  Of  strangers.  Jesus  said  to  him,  Then 
the  children  are  free.”  Slight  words  in  seeming, 
yet  declaring  in  fact  that  most  wonderful  truth  which 
had  formed  so  shortly  before  Peter’s  confession,  and 
drawn  down  upon  him  the  yet  unexhausted  promise; 
for  they  expressed,  I  am  as  truly  the  Son  of  that  God, 
the  Sovereign  of  the  Temple,  for  whom  this  tribute  is 
paid,  as  the  children  of  earthly  sovereigns,  who  take 
tribute,  are  their  sons  by  nature.  Therefore  by  right 
I  am  free.  “  But  that  we  may  not  scandalize  them, 
go  to  the  sea  and  cast  in  a  hook;  and  that  fish  which 
shall  first  come  up,  take;  and  when  thou  hast  opened 
its  mouth,  thou  shalt  find  a  stater;  take  that,  and 
give  it  to  them  for  me  and  thee.”  Declaring  to  his 
favoured  disciple  afresh  that  he  is  the  true,  and  not  the 


40  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

adopted,  Son  of  God,  answering  his  thoughts  by  antici¬ 
pation,  and  expressing  his  knowledge  of  absent  things 
by  the  power  of  the  Son  of  God,  he  tries  his  faith  by 
the  promise  of  a  fresh  miracle,  which  involved  a  like 
exercise  of  divine  power.  Peter,  in  proceeding  to 
execute  his  command,  must  make  that  confession 
afresh  by  deed,  which  he  had  made  before  by  word, 
and  which  his  Lord  had  just  repeated  with  his  own 
mouth.  How  else  could  he  go  to  the  lake  expecting  to 
draw  at  the  first  cast  a  fish  in  whose  mouth  he  should 
find  a  coin  containing  the  exact  amount  due  to  the 
Temple  for  two  persons  ?  But  what  followed  ?  What 
but  a  most  remarkable  reward  for  the  faith  which  he 
should  show  ?  “  Take  that,  and  give  it  to  them  for 

me  and  thee.”  There  are  looks,  there  are  tones  of  the 
voice,  which  convey  to  us  more  than  language.  So, 
too,  there  are  acts  so  exceedingly  suggestive,  that 
without  in  any  formal  way  proving,  they  carry  with 
them  the  force  of  the  strongest  proof.  And  so, 
perhaps,  never  did  our  Lord  in  a  more  marked  manner 
associate  Peter  with  himself  than  here.  It  was  a  singu¬ 
lar  distinction  which  could  not  fail  to  strike  every  one 
who  heard  it.  Thus  St  Chrysostom  exclaims,  “You 
see  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  honour  ’’j1  and  he 
adds,  “  wherefore,  too,  in  reward  for  his  faith  he 
connected  him  with  himself  in  the  payment  of  the 
tribute.”  Indeed,  how  could  one  of  the  disciples  be 
more  signally  pointed  out  than  by  this  incident,  as 
‘‘  the  faithful  and  wise  steward,  whom  the  Lord 
would  set  over  his  household,  to  give  them  their  portion 
of  food  in  due  time  ”  ? 

1  On  Matt.,  Horn.  58,  n.  2. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  41 

Other  Fathers,  as  well  as  St  Chrysostom,  did  not  fail 
to  see  such  a  meaning  in  this  passage ;  but  let  us  take 
the  words  of  Origen  as  pointing  out  the  connection 
of  this  incident  with  the  important  question  following. 
His  words  are:  “  It  seems  to  me  that  (the  disciples) 
considering  this  a  very  great  honour  which  had  been 
done  to  Peter  by  Jesus,  in  having  put  him  higher  than 
the  rest  of  his  disciples,  they  wished  to  make  sure  of 
what  they  suspected  by  asking  Jesus,  and  hearing  his 
answer,  whether,  as  they  supposed,  he  judged  Peter 
to  be  above  them;  and  they  also  hoped  to  learn  the 
cause  for  which  Peter  was  preferred  to  the  rest  of  the 
disciples.  Matthew,  then,  wishing  to  signify  this  by 
these  words,  ‘  take  that,  and  give  it  to  them  for  me 
and  thee,’  added,  4  on  that  day  the  disciples  came  to 
Jesus,  saying,  Who,  thinkest  thou,  is  the  greater  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ?’  ’n 

For,  indeed,  why  should  they  immediately  ask 
this  question  ?  The  preceding  incident  furnishes  a 
natural  and  sufficient  cause.  The  Apostles,  it  seems, 
were  urged  by  the  plainness  of  Christ’s  words  and  acts 
to  inquire  who  among  them  should  have  the  chief 
authority.  Who  will  not  agree  with  St  Chrysostom: 
“  The  Apostles  were  touched  with  a  human  infirmity, 
which  the  Evangelist,  too,  signifies  in  the  words,  ‘  in 
that  hour,’  when  he  had  honoured  him  (Peter)  before 
them  all.  For  though  of  James  and  John  one  of  the 
two  was  the  first-born  ”  (alluding  to  an  opinion  that  the 
tax  was  paid  by  the  first-born),  “  he  did  nothing  like 
it  for  them.  Hence,  being  ashamed,  they  confessed 
their  excitement  of  mind,  and  do  not  say  plainly, 
1  Origen  on  the  text,  in  Matt.,  tom.  xiii  14. 


42  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Why  hast  thou  preferred  Peter  to  us  ?  Is  he  greater 
than  we  are  ?  For  this  they  do  not  dare;  but  they 
ask  indefinitely,  Who  is  the  greater  ?  For  when 
they  saw  three  preferred  to  the  rest,  they  felt  nothing 
like  this;  but  when  one  received  so  great  an  honour 
they  were  pained.  Nor  were  they  kindled  by  this 
alone,  but  by  putting  together  many  other  things. 
For  he  had  said  to  him,  ‘  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys/ 
and  ‘  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar  Jona/  and  here, 
‘  Give  it  to  them  for  me  and  for  thee  ’ ;  and  also  they 
were  pricked  at  seeing  his  confidence  and  freedom  of 
speech/,1 

Thus  their  question,  if  it  did  not  express,  at  least 
suggested  this  meaning,  “  Speak  more  plainly  and 
distinctly  whether  Peter  is  to  be  the  greater  and  the 
chief  in  the  Church,  and  accordingly  among  us,”  and 
so  they  seem  to  have  drawn  from  our  Lord’s  act  a 
conclusion  which  they  did  not  see  in  the  promising 
or  bestowing  the  prophetic  name  of  Peter,  nor  even  in 
the  promises  conveyed  in  explaining  that  name,  and 
were  vexed  at  the  preference  shown  to  him. 

And  if2  any  be  inclined  to  conclude  from  hence 
that  our  Lord’s  words  and  acts  to  Peter  had  not  been 
of  any  marked  significance,  they  should  be  reminded 
that  the  very  clearest  and  plainest  things  were  some¬ 
times  not  understood  by  the  Apostles,  before  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  them.  This  was 
specially  the  case  with  the  things  which  they  were 
disinclined  to  believe.  Thus  our  Lord  again  and 
again  foretold  to  them  his  passion  in  express  terms, 

1  St  Chrysostom  on  the  text,  Horn.  58,  tom.  vii,  p.  587. 

2  Passaglia,  p.  77,  n.  38. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  43 

but  we  are  told,  “  they  understood  none  of  these 
things.”1  He  foretold,  too,  his  resurrection,  yet  they 
did  not  in  the  least  expect  it,  and  they  became  at  length 
fully  assured  of  the  fact  before  they  remembered  the 
prediction.  Strange  as  these  things  seem,  yet  prob¬ 
ably  every  one’s  private  experience  will  furnish  him 
with  similar  instances  of  a  veil  being  cast  upon  his 
eyes,  which  prevented  his  discerning  the  most  evident 
things,  towards  which  there  was  generally  some  secret 
disinclination. 

But2  how  did  our  Lord  answer  their  question  ? 
Did  he  remove  at  once  the  ground  of  their  jealousy 
by  declaring  that  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  no  one 
should  have  pre-eminence  of  dignity,  but  the  condition 
of  all  be  equal  ?  On  the  contrary,  he  condemns 
ambition  and  enjoins  humility,  but  likewise  gives  such 
a  turn  to  his  discourse  as  to  insinuate  that  there  would 
be  one  pre-eminent  over  the  rest.  “  Jesus  calling  unto 
him  a  little  child,  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and 
said,  Amen  I  say  unto  you,  unless  you  be  converted 
and  become  as  little  children,  you  shall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.”3  Then  he  adds,  “  Whoso¬ 
ever  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this  little  child, 
he  is  the  greater  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  Thus 
he  did  not  exclude  the  pre-eminence  of  that  “  greater 
one,”  about  which  they  asked,  but  pointed  out  what 
his  character  ought  to  be.  But  this  will  be  much 
clearer  from  a  like  inquiry,  and  the  answer  to  it, 
recorded  by  St  Luke. 

For  even  at  the  Last  Supper,  our  Lord  having  told 
them  that  he  should  be  betrayed,  and  was  going  to 
1  Luke  xviii  34.  2  Passaglia,  p.  78.  3  Matt,  xviii  2. 


44  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

leave  them  in  the  way  determined  for  him,  there  was 
not  only  an  inquiry  among  them  which  of  them 
should  do  that  thing,  but  also,  so  keenly  were  their 
minds  as  yet,  before  the  coming  down  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  alive  to  the  desire  of  pre-eminence,  “  there 
was  a  strife  among  them  which  of  them  should  seem 
to  be  greater.”  Now  our  Lord  meets  their  con¬ 
tention  thus:  “  The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  lord  it  over 
them,  and  they  that  have  power  over  them  are  called 
beneficent.  But  you  not  so;  but  he  that  is  the  greater 
among  you,  let  him  become  as  the  younger;  and  he 
that  is  the  leader,  as  he  that  serveth.  For  which  is 
greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  table,  or  he  that  serveth  ? 
Is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  table  ?  But  I  am  in  the 
midst  of  you  as  he  that  serveth.  And  you  are  they 
who  have  continued  with  me  in  my  temptations;  and 
I  dispose  to  you,  as  my  Father  hath  disposed  to  me,  a 
kingdom;  that  you  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in 
my  kingdom;  and  may  sit  upon  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel.”1 

Now2  in  this  speech  of  our  Lord  we  may  remark 
four  points: 

1.  What  is  omitted,  though  it  would  seem  most 

apposite  to  be  said. 

2.  What  is  affirmed,  if  not  expressly,  yet  by  plain 

consequence. 

3.  What  comparison  is  used  in  illustration. 

4.  What  meets  with  censure  and  rejection. 

1.  First,  then,  though  the  Apostles  had  twice  before 
contended  about  pre-eminence,  yet  our  Lord  neither 
there,  nor  here,  said  openly  that  he  would  not  prefer 
1  Luke  xxii  25.  2  Passaglia,  p.  77. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  45 

any  one  over  the  rest,  or  appoint  any  one  to  be  their 
leader.  Yet  the  importance  of  the  subject,  his  own 
wisdom,  and  his  love  towards  his  disciples,  as  well  as 
his  usual  mode  of  acting,  seemed  to  demand  that,  had 
it  been  his  will  for  no  one  of  them  to  be  set  over  the 
rest,  he  should  plainly  declare  it,  and  thus  extinguish  all 
strife.  No  less  a  matter  was  at  issue  than  the  harmony 
of  the  Apostles  with  each  other,  the  peace  of  the  Church 
and  the  success  of  the  divine  counsel  for  its  govern¬ 
ment.  Moreover,  the  Gospels  represent  him  to  us  as 
continually  removing  doubts,  clearing  up  perplexities, 
and  correcting  wrong  judgements  among  his  disciples. 
Let  us  recall  to  mind  a  very  similar  occasion,  when  the 
mother  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  with  her  children  came 
before  him,  asking  “  that  these  my  two  sons  may  sit 
the  one  on  thy  right  hand  and  the  other  on  thy  left, 
in  thy  kindgom.”  He  rejected  their  prayer  at  once, 
saying,  “  To  sit  on  my  right  or  my  left  hand  is  not 
mine  to  give  to  you,  but  to  them  for  whom  it  is  pre¬ 
pared  by  my  Father.”1  The  silence,  therefore,  of 
Christ  here,  under  such  circumstances,  is  a  proof 
that  it  was  not  the  divine  will  that  all  the  Apostles 
should  be  in  such  a  sense  equal  that  no  one  of  them 
should  hold  a  superior  authority  over  the  rest. 

2.  But  eloquent  as  this  silence  is,  we  are  not  left 
to  trust  to  it  alone,  for  our  Lord’s  words  point  out, 
besides,  the  institution  of  one  superior.  “  The  kings 
of  the  Gentiles,”  he  says,  “  lord  it  over  them;  and 
they  that  have  power  over  them  are  called  benefactors. 
But  you  not  so:  but  he  that  is  the  greater  among  you, 
let  him  become  as  the  younger;  and  he  that  is  the 

1  Matt,  xx  2o. 


46  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

leader,  as  he  that  serveth.”  A  greater  and  a  leader , 
then,  there  was  to  he.  Our  Lord’s  words  contain  two 
parallel  propositions  repeated:  1.  There  is  among 
you  one  who  is  the  greater,  let  him,  then,  be  as  the 
younger.  2.  There  is  among  you  one  who  is  the 
leader,  let  him  be  as  he  that  serveth.  Thus  our  Lord’s 
meaning  is  most  distinct  that  they  should  have  a 
superior. 

But  in  the  very  similar  passage  about  the  sons  of 
Zebedee,  lest  any  should  conclude  that  no  one  of  the 
Apostles  was  to  be  superior  to  the  rest,  he  called  them 
to  him,  and  said,  “  You  know  that  the  princes  of  the 
Gentiles  lord  it  over  them,  and  they  that  are  the 
greater  exercise  power  upon  them.  It  shall  not  be  so 
among  you,  but  whosoever  will  be  the  greater  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  minister;  and  he  that  will  be  the 
first  among  you  shall  be  your  servant.  Even  as  the 
Son  of  Man  is  not  come  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  redemption  for  many.” 
Where  he  tells  them  his  will,  not  that  no  one  of  the 
Apostles  should  be  “  great  ”  and  “  first,”  but  what 
the  type  and  model  should  be  which  that  “  great  ” 
and  “  first  ”  one  should  imitate,  even  the  Son  of  Man 
who  came  to  minister. 

3.  For  to  make  this  quite  certain,  there,  and  here 
too,  he  directs  us  to  a  particular  comparison,  by  which 
he  explains  and  concludes  his  discourse,  “  For  who  is 
greater,  he  that  sitteth  at  table,  or  he  that  serveth  ? 
Is  not  he  that  sitteth  at  table  ?  But  I  am  among  you 
as  he  that  serveth.  .  .  .  And  I  dispose  unto  you, 
as  my  Father  disposed  unto  me,  a  kingdom.”  Here 
our  Lord  sets  himself  before  his  Apostles  as  the 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


47 


exemplar  both  of  the  rule  which  the  superior  was  to 
exercise,  and  of  the  temper  and  character  which  he 
was  to  show.  As  he  had  been  speaking  of  the  king¬ 
doms  of  the  Gentiles,  so  he  now  points  out  to  them  in 
contrast  the  true  kingdom  which  he  was  disposing 
unto  them.  The  Church,  as  it  had  been  from  the 
beginning,  was  to  be  the  model  of  what  it  should  be 
to  the  end.  Now  all  confess  that  in  that  Church 
Christ  had  held  the  place  of  “  the  First,”  “  the  Great 
One,”  “  the  Ruler.”  And  now  he  explains  that  one 
of  his  Apostles  should  occupy  that  place  of  his,  and 
occupying  it  should  be  of  a  like  temper  with  himself, 
who  had  been  the  minister  and  servant  of  all.  And  it 
may  be  remarked  that  the  same  word  is  here  applied 
to  him  who  should  rule  among  the  disciples,  which 
expresses  the  dignity  of  Christ  himself  in  the  prophecy 
of  Micheas,  quoted  in  Matt,  ii  6,  “  Out  of  thee  shall  go 
forth1  the  ruler ,  who  shall  be  shepherd  over  my  people 
Israel.”  For  Christ  says,  “  He  that  is  the  greater 
among  you,  let  him  be  as  the  younger;  and  he  that 
ruleth ,  as  he  that  serveth.  For  who  is  greater,  he  that 
sitteth  at  meat,  or  he  who  serveth  ?  But  /  am  among 
you  as  he  that  serveth.”  “  I  dispose  to  you  a  kingdom, 
as  my  Father  disposed  to  me:”  let  him  who  follows 
me  in  place,  follow  me  in  character. 

But,  4,  what  does  our  Lord  censure  and  reject  from 
his  Church  ?  It  is  plain  that  he  compares  kingdom 
with  kingdom,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is 
the  Church,  with  human  kingdoms,  and,  moreover, 
that  the  negative  quality  as  to  which,  in  the  clause, 
“  But  you  not  so,”  the  two  are  compared,  is,  not  the 

1  ^o^evos. 


48  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

fact  that  there  is  pre-eminence  and  rule  in  both,  but 
a  certain  mode  of  exercising  them.  This  is  the  pomp 
and  ambition  expressed  in  the  words,  “  lording  it,” 
“  exercising  authority,”  “  are  called  beneficent.”  As 
again  is  shown  in  the  repeated  declaration  that  what 
had  been  most  alien  from  the  spirit  of  his  own  ministry 
should  not  appear  in  the  ministry  that  he  would 
establish  after  him.  Now,  he  had  shown  no  pomp 
and  pride  of  dominion,  but  yet  he  had  shown  the 
dominion  itself  in  the  fullest  sense,  the  power  of 
passing  laws,  enjoining  precepts,  defining  rites, 
threatening  punishments,  governing,  in  short,  his 
Church,  so  that  he  had  been  pre-eminently  “  the 
Lord.”  Lastly,  this  is  shown  in  the  words  recorded 
by  St  John,  as  said  shortly  after  on  this  same  occasion: 
“  You  call  me  Master  and  Lord,  and  you  say  well, 
for  so  I  am.  If  I,  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have 
washed  your  feet,  you  also  ought  to  wash  one  another’s 
feet :  for  I  have  given  you  an  example ,  that  as  I  have  done 
unto  you,  so  you  also  may  do.”1 

Now,  nothing  can  show  more  strongly  than  this 
discourse  the  pre-eminence  and  authority  which  our 
Lord  was  going  to  establish  in  one  of  his  Apostles 
over  the  rest.  For  here  we  have  his  intention  dis¬ 
closed  that  in  his  kingdom,  which  is  the  Church, 
some  one  there  should  be  “  the  Great,”  “  the  First,” 
and  “  the  Ruler,”  who  should  discharge,  in  due 
proportion  and  analogy,  the  office  which  he  himself, 
before  he  returned  to  the  Father,  had  held.  But 
before  we  consider  further  who  this  one  was,  let  us  look 
at  the  subject  from  a  somewhat  different  point  of  view. 

1  JohrTxiii$i5. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  49 

And1  here  we  must  lay  down  three  points,  the  first 
of  which  is,  that  our  Lord,  during  his  life  on  earth, 
had  acted  in  two  capacities,  the  one  as  the  Author  and 
Founder,  the  other  as  the  Head  and  Supreme  Ruler  of 
his  Church.  His  functions  in  the  former  capacity 
are  too  plain  to  need  enlarging  upon.  He  disclosed 
the  objects  of  our  faith;  he  instituted  rites  and  sacra¬ 
ments  ;  he  provided  by  the  establishment  of  a  ministry 
for  the  perpetual  growth  and  duration  of  the  Church. 
It  was  in  this  sense  that  he  spoke  of  himself  to  his 
Apostles,  as  “  the  Master,”  who  could  share  his 
prerogatives  with  no  one:  “  But  be  not  you  called 
Rabbi,  for  one  is  your  Master,  and  all  you  are 
brethren.”2  Thus  is  he  “  the  Teacher,”  “  the  Master,” 
throughout  the  Gospel. 

But  he  likewise  acted  as  the  Head  of  his  Church, 
with  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  chief  visible 
Ruler.  He  was  the  living  bond  of  his  disciples;  the 
person  around  whom  they  grouped;  whose  presence 
wrought  harmony ;  whose  voice  terminated  contention 
among  them ;  who  was  ever  at  hand  to  solve  emergent 
difficulties.  Thus  it  is  that  prophecy  distinguished 
him  as  “  the  Lord,”  “  the  King,”  “  the  Shepherd  ”; 
“  on  whose  shoulders  is  the  government,”  “  who  should 
rule  his  people  Israel.”  And  his  Church  answers 
to  him  in  this  capacity,  as  the  family,  the  house,  the 
city,  the  fold,  and  the  kingdom. 

Thus  his  relation  to  the  Church  was  twofold:  as 
Founder,  and  as  Supreme  Pastor. 

Secondly ,  the  Church  shares  her  Lord’s  prerogative 
of  unchangeableness,  and  as  he  is  “  Jesus  Christ  the 
1  Passaglia,  p.  82.  2  Matt,  xxiii  8. 


4 


50  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever,”  so  she,  his 
mystical  body,  in  her  proportion  remains  like  herself 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The  Church  and 
Christianity  are  bound  to  each  other  in  a  mutual 
relation ;  the  Church  is  Christianity  embodied ;  Christi¬ 
anity  is  the  Church  in  conception ;  the  consistency  and 
identity  which  belong  to  Christianity  belong  likewise 
to  her;  neither  can  change  their  nature,  nor  put  on 
another  form. 

But,  thirdly ,  the  Church  would  be  unlike  herself, 
if,  having  been  from  her  very  cradle  visibly  adminis¬ 
tered  by  the  rule  of  One,  she  fell  subsequently,  either 
under  no  rule  at  all,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Independents,  or  under  the  rule  of  the  multitude, 
according  to  the  Calvinists,  or  under  the  rule  of  an 
aristocracy,  as  Episcopalians  imagine.  A  change  of 
government  superinduces  a  change  of  that  substantial 
form  which  constitutes  a  society.  But  this  holds  in 
her  case  especially,  above  all  other  societies,  as  she 
came  forth  from  the  creative  hand  of  her  Lord,  her 
whole  organization  instinct  with  inward  life,  her 
government  directly  instituted  by  God  himself,  in 
which  lies  her  point  of  distinction  from  all  temporal 
polities. 

For  imagine  that,  upon  our  Lord’s  departure, 
no  one  had  been  deputed  to  take  the  visible  headship 
and  rule  over  the  Church.  How,  without  ever  fresh 
revelations,  and  an  abiding  miraculous  power,  could 
that  complex  unity  of  faith,  of  worship,  and  of  polity, 
have  been  maintained,  which  the  Lord  has  set  forth 
as  the  very  sign  and  token  of  his  Church  P1  A  multi- 

1  John  x,  xiii,  xvii. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  51 

tude  scattered  throughout  the  most  distant  regions, 
and  naturally  differing  in  race,  in  habits,  in  tempera¬ 
ment,  how  could  it  possibly  be  joined  in  one,  and 
remain  one,  without  a  powerful  bond  of  unity  ?  Hence, 
in  the  fourth  century,  St  Jerome  observed,  “  The 
safety  of  the  Church  depends  on  the  dignity  of  the 
supreme  Priest,  in  whom,  if  all  do  not  recognize  a 
peculiar  and  supereminent  power,  there  will  arise 
as  many  schisms  in  the  Church  as  there  are  priests.”1 
And  the  repentant  confessors  out  of  Novatian’s  schism, 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  “  We  know  that 
Cornelius  (the  Pope)  has  been  elected  Bishop  of  the 
most  holy  Catholic  Church,  by  Almighty  God  and 
Christ  our  Lord. — We  are  not  ignorant  that  there  is 
one  God,  one  Christ  the  Lord,  whom  we  confessed, 
one  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  there  ought  to  be  one  Bishop 
in  the  Catholic  Church.”2  And  these  words,  both 
of  St  Jerome,  and  of  the  confessors,  if  they  primarily 
apply  to  the  diocesan  bishop  among  his  priests  and 
people,  so  do  they  with  far  greater  force  apply  to  the 
chief  Bishop  among  his  brethren  in  the  whole  Church. 
Now,  as  our  Lord  willed  that  his  Church  should  do 
without  fresh  revelations  and  new  miracles,  such  as 
at  first  accredited  it,  and  that  it  should  preserve  unity; 
and  as,  when  it  was  a  little  flock,  which  could  be 
assembled  in  a  single  room,  it  had  yet  one  visible 
Ruler,  how  can  we  doubt  that  he  willed  this  form  of 
government  to  remain,  and  that  there  should  be  one 
perpetually  to  rule  it  in  his  name, and  preserve  it  in  unity, 
since  it  was  to  become  co-extensive  with  the  earth  ? 

Again,  we  may  ask,  was  the  condition  of  fold,  house, 

1  Dialog,  cont.  Lucif.,  n.  9.  2  St  Cyprian,  Ep.  46. 


52  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

family,  city,  and  kingdom,  so  repeatedly  set  forth  in 
Holy  Scripture,  to  belong  to  the  Church  only  while 
Christ  was  yet  on  earth,  or  to  be  the  visible  evidence 
of  its  truth  for  ever  ?  Do  these  terms  exhibit  a 
temporary,  or  a  perpetual  state  ?  Each  one  of  these 
symbols  by  itself,  and  all  together,  involve  one  visible 
Ruler;  therefore,  so  long  as  the  Church  can  be  called 
with  truth  the  one  house,  the  one  family,  the  one  city, 
the  one  fold,  the  one  kingdom,  so  long  must  it  have 
one  visible  and  supreme  Ruler. 

But  once  grant  that  such  a  one  there  was  after  our 
Lord's  departure,  and  no  one  can  doubt  that  one  to 
have  been  Peter.  It  is  easier  to  deny  the  supreme 
Ruler  altogether,  than  to  make  him  any  one  but  Peter. 
The  whole  course  of  the  Gospels  shows  none  other 
marked  out  by  so  many  distinctions.  Thus,  even 
those  who  wish  to  refuse  a  real  power  to  his  Primacy 
are  compelled  by  the  force  of  evidence  to  allow  him  a 
Primacy  of  order  and  honour. 

But  nothing  did  our  Lord  more  pointedly  reject 
than  the  vain  pomp  of  titles  and  honours.  In  nothing 
is  his  own  example  more  marked  than  in  that  he 
exercised  real  power  and  supreme  authority  without 
pomp  or  show.  Nothing  did  he  enjoin  more  em¬ 
phatically  on  the  disciple  who  should  be  the  “  Great 
One,”  and  “  the  Ruler,”  among  his  brethren,  than 
that  he  must  follow  his  Master  in  being  the  servant  of 
all.  A  Primacy,  then,  consisting  in  titles  and  mere 
precedency,  is  of  all  things  most  opposed  to  the  spirit 
and  the  precepts  of  our  Lord.  And  so  the  Primacy 
which  he  designated  must  be  one  of  real  power  and 
pre-eminent  authority. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  53 

And  this  brings  us  back  to  the  passage  of  St  Luke 
which  we  were  considering,  where  four  things  prove 
that  Christ  had  such  a  headship  in  view.  First,  the 
occasion,  for  the  Apostles  were  contending  for  a  place 
of  real  authority.  The  sons  of  Zebedee  expressed  it 
by  sitting  on  his  right  hand  and  on  his  left,  that  is, 
holding  the  second  and  the  third  place  of  dignity  in 
the  kingdom. 

Secondly,  the  double  comparison  which  our  Lord 
used,  the  one  negative,  the  other  affirmative:  in  the 
former,  contrasting  the  Church’s  Ruler  with  the  kings 
of  the  Gentiles,  he  excluded  pomp  and  splendour, 
lordship  and  ambition;  in  the  latter,  referring  him  to 
his  own  example,  who  had  the  most  real  and  true 
power  and  superiority,  he  taught  him  to  unite  these 
with  a  meekness  and  an  attention  to  the  wants  of  his 
brethren,  of  which  his  own  life  had  been  the  model. 

Thirdly,  the  words  “  the  First,”  “  the  Greater,” 
and  “  the  Ruler  ”  indicate  the  pre-eminence  of  the 
future  head,  for  as  they  appear  in  the  context,  and 
according  to  their  scriptural  force,  they  indicate  not 
a  vain  and  honorary  but  a  real  authority,  one  of  them 
being  even  the  very  title  given  to  our  Lord. 

And,  fourthly,  this  is  proved  by  the  object  in  view, 
which  is,  maintaining  the  identity  of  the  Church  and 
the  form  which  it  had  from  the  beginning,  and  pre¬ 
serving  its  manifold  unity.  As  to  its  identity,  and 
original  form,  it  is  needless  to  observe  that  Christ 
exercised  in  it  not  an  honorary  but  a  real  supremacy, 
so  that  under  him  its  government  was  really  in  the 
hands  of  one,  the  Ruler.  As  to  the  preservation  of  its 
unity — and  especially  a  unity  so  complex — the  very 


54  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

analogy  of  human  society  will  sufficiently  teach  us 
that  it  is  impossible  to  be  preserved  without  a  strong 
central  authority.  Contentions  can  neither  be  checked 
as  they  arise,  nor  terminated  when  they  come  to  a 
head,  without  the  interference  of  a  power  to  which 
all  yield  obedience.  And  the  living  example  of  those 
religious  societies  which  have  not  this  power  is  an 
argument  whose  force  none  can  resist.  Where  Peter 
is  not,  there  is  neither  unity  of  faith,  nor  of  charity, 
nor  of  external  regimen. 

No  sooner,1  then,  had  our  Lord  in  this  manner 
pointed  out  that  there  should  be  one  hereafter  to  take 
his  place  on  earth  and  to  be  the  Ruler  of  his  brethren, 
expressing  at  the  same  time  the  toilsome  nature  of  the 
trust,  and  the  duty  of  exercising  it  with  the  spirit 
which  he,  the  great  model,  had  shown,  than,  turning 
his  discourse  from  the  Apostles,  whom  hitherto  he 
had  addressed  in  common,  to  Peter  singly,  he  proceeded 
to  designate  Peter  as  that  one,  to  assure  him  of  a  singular 
privilege,  and  to  enforce  upon  him  a  proportionate 
duty. 

And  first,  a  break  in  the  hitherto  continuous  dis¬ 
course  is  ushered  in  by  the  words,  “  And  the  Lord 
said,”  and  what  follows  is  fixed  to  Peter  specially, 
by  the  reiteration  of  his  name,  “  Simon,  Simon, 
behold  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  that  he  may 
sift  you  as  wheat  to  have  you ,  that  is,  not  Peter 
alone,  but  all  the  Apostles,  the  same  you,  whom  in 
the  preceding  verses  he  had  so  often  repeated,  “  you 
not  so,”  “  I  am  in  the  midst  of  you,”  “  you  are  they 
that  have  continued  with  me,”  “  and  I  dispose  to  you  a 

1  Passaglia,  p.  89. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  55 

kingdom,”  “  that  you  may  eat  and  drink  with  me 
and  what  follows  ?  What  was  the  resource  provided 
by  the  Lord  against  this  attack  of  the  great  enemy  on 
all  his  fold  ?  “  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee>  that  thy  faith 
fail  not:  and  thou  being  once  converted  confirm  thy 
brethren.”  Not  “  I  have  prayed  for  you ”  where  all 
were  assaulted,  “  that  your  faith  fail  not,”  but  I  have 
prayed  for  thee ,  Peter,  that  thy  faith  fail  not !  Nothing 
can  be  more  emphatic  than  this  change  of  number, 
when  our  Lord  throughout  all  his  previous  discourse 
had  used  the  plural,  and  now,  continuing  the  plural 
to  designate  the  persons  attacked,  uses  the  singular 
to  specify  the  person  for  whom  he  has  prayed,  and  to 
whom  he  assures  a  singular  privilege,  the  fruit  of  that 
prayer.  Nothing  could  more  strongly  prove  that  this 
address  was  special  to  Peter. 

Nor  less  evident  is  the  singular  dignity  of  what  is 
here  promised  to  him.  First  of  all,  it  is  the  fruit  of 
the  prayer  of  Christ.  Of  what  importance  must  that 
be  which  was  solicited  by  our  Lord  of  his  Father, 
and  at  a  moment  when  the  redemption  of  the  world 
was  being  accomplished,  and  when  his  Passion  may  be 
said  to  have  begun  ?  Of  what  importance  that  which 
was  to  be  the  defence  not  of  Peter  only,  but  all  the 
disciples,  against  the  most  formidable  assault  of  the 
great  enemy,  who  had  demanded1  them  as  it  were  to 
deliver  them  over  to  punishment  ?  And  this  was 
“  that  thy  faith  fail  not.”  How  is  it  possible  to  draw 
any  other  conclusion  here  than  what  St  Leo  in  the 
fifth  century  expressed  so  clearly  before  all  the  bishops 
of  Italy  ?  “  The  danger  from  the  temptation  of  fear 

1  i^yTTiaaro.  The  word  in  classic  Greek  has  this  force. 


56  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

was  common  to  all  the  Apostles,  and  all  equally 
,  needed  the  help  of  the  divine  protection,  since  the 
devil  desired  to  dismay  all,  to  crush  all;  and  yet  a 
special  care  of  Peter  is  undertaken  by  our  Lord,  and 
he  prays  peculiarly  for  the  faith  of  Peter,  as  if  the  state 
of  the  rest  would  be  more  sure,  if  the  mind  of  their 
chief  were  not  conquered.  In  Peter,  therefore,  the 
fortitude  of  all  is  protected,  and  the  help  of  divine 
grace  is  so  ordered,  that  the  firmness  which  through 
Christ  is  given  to  Peter,  through  Peter  is  conferred  on 
the  Apostles.”1  And  if  such  is  the  importance  of  the 
help  secured,  no  less  is  the  charge  following:  “  And 
thou,  being  once  converted,  confirm  thy  brethren.” 
To  confirm  others  is  to  be  put  in  an  office  of  dignity 
and  authority  over  them.  And  his  brethren  were 
those  whom  our  Lord  till  now  had  been  addressing 
in  common  with  him;  to  whom  he  had  just  disclosed 
“  a  Greater  ”  and  “  a  Ruler  ”  “  among  ”  them;  that 
is,  the  Apostles  themselves.  Among  these,  then,  when 
our  Lord’s  visible  presence  was  withdrawn,  Peter  was 
to  be  the  principle  of  stability,  binding  and  moulding 
them  into  one  building.  For  one  cannot  fail  to  see 
how  this  great  promise  and  prophecy  answers  to  those 
in  Matthew.  There  our  Lord,  as  Architect,  promised 
to  lay  Peter  as  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail:  here,  being 
about  to  leave  the  world,  when  his  own  work  was 
finished,  to  ascend  unto  his  Father,  and  to  assume  his 
great  power  and  reign,  he  makes  Peter  as  it  were  the 
Architect  to  carry  on  the  work  which  was  to  be  com¬ 
pleted  by  his  grace  and  authority,  but  by  human 

1  Serm.  4,  c.  3. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


57 


co-operation.  So  exact  is  the  resemblance  that  we 
may  put  the  two  promises  in  parallel  columns  to  illus¬ 
trate  each  other: 

Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
this  Rock  I  will  build  my  that  thy  faith  fail  not;  and 
Church ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  thou,  being  once  converted, 
shall  not  prevail  against  it.  confirm  thy  brethren. 

But  light  is  thrown  on  the  greatness  of  this  pre¬ 
eminence  thus  bestowed  on  Peter  of  confirming  his 
brethren,  if  we  consider  that  the  term  is  applied  to  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  bestowing  by 
inherent  power  what  is  here  granted  by  participation. 
Of  the  Father  it  is  said,  “  To  him  that  is  able  to 
establish  you  according  to  my  Gospel — the  only  wise 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ,  be  honour  and  glory.” 
•And  again,  “  Now  he  that  confirmeth  us  with  you  in 
Christ,  and  that  hath  anointed  us,  is  God;”  and  again, 

The  God  of  all  grace,  who  hath  called  us  unto  his 
eternal  glory  in  Christ  Jesus,  after  you  have  suffered 
a  little,  will  himself  perfect  you,  confirm ,  establish  you.”1 
Of  Christ  likewise:  “  As  therefore  you  have  received 
Jesus  Christ  the  Lord,  walk  ye  in  him,  rooted  and 
built  up  in  him,  and  confirmed  in  the  faith.”  And 
“  waiting  for  the  manifestation  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  also  will  confirm  you  unto  the  end  without 
crime.”  And  again:  “  Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
himself  exhort  your  hearts,  and  confirm  you  in  every 
good  word  and  work.”2  And  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
continually  mentioned  as  the  author  of  this  gift,  when, 
for  instance,  to  him  is  ascribed  “  the  teaching  all  truth,” 

1  Rom.  xvi  25;  2  Cor.  i  21;  1  Pet.  v  10. 

2  Col.  ii  6;  1  Cor.  i  7;  2  Thess.  ii  16. 


58  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

“  the  leading  into  all  truth,”  “  the  bringing  to  mind  ” 
all  things  which  Christ  had  said.  And  St  Paul  prays 
“  that  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of 
his  glory,  to  be  strengthened  by  his  Spirit  with  might 
unto  the  inward  man.”1 

What,  therefore,  is  proper  to  the  most  Holy  Trinity, 
and  given  in  the  highest  sense  by  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  the  will  of  Christ  should  be 
shared  by  Peter,  according  as  man  is  capable  of  it. 
That  is,  it  was  his  pleasure  that  the  same  man,  whom 
he  had  intimately  associated  with  himself  by  communi¬ 
cating  to  him  his  prerogative  to  be  the  Rock,  should  be 
closely  joined  with  the  Blessed  Trinity,  by  partici¬ 
pating  in  that  privilege,  whereby,  together  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is  the  confirmation  and 
stability  of  the  faithful.  But  if  any  rule  there  can  be 
whereby  to  measure  pre-eminence  and  dignity,  it  is 
surely  that  which  is  derived  from  participation  of  divine 
properties  and  offices.  And  the  closer  that  by  these 
Peter  is  shown  to  have  approached  to  God,  the  higher 
his  exaltation  above  the  rest  of  his  brethren,  who,  as 
it  has  been  observed,  are  the  Apostles.  To  them  he 
is  the  Rock,  and  them  he  is  to  confirm.  Thus  Theo- 
phylact,  in  the  eleventh  century,  commenting  on  this 
text,  says,  “  The  plain  meaning  of  this  is,  that,  since 
I  hold  thee  as  the  ruler  of  my  disciples,  after  thou 
shalt  have  wept  over  thy  denial  and  repented,  confirm 
the  rest.  For  this  belongs  to  thee  as  being  after  me 
the  rock  and  support  ”  (literally,  confirmation)  “  of 
the  Church.  Now,  one  may  see  that  this  is  said  not 
only  of  the  Apostles,  that  they  are  confirmed  by  Peter, 
1  John  xvi  13;  xiv  16,  26;  Eph.  iii  16. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  59 

but  also  concerning  all  the  faithful  until  the  con* 
summation  of  the  world.” 

But  looking  more  closely  into  the  nature  of  this 
dignity,  since  Christ,  by  the  bestowal  of  heavenly 
gifts,  caused  Peter  to  be  conspicuous  through  the 
firmness  of  his  own  faith,  and  through  the  charge 
of  confirming  the  faith  of  his  brethren,  we  can  call 
it  by  no  fitter  name  than  a  Primacy  of  faith.  For 
it  has  these  two  qualities :  it  cannot  fail  itself ;  and  it 
confirms  others.  And  for  the  authority  which  it 
carries,  such  a  Primacy  of  faith  cannot  even  be 
imagined  without  at  the  same  time  imagining  the 
office  by  which  Peter  was  bound  to  watch  over  the 
firmness  and  integrity  of  the  common  faith.  In  this 
office  two  things  are  involved:  first,  the  right  to,  and 
therefore  the  possession  of,  all  things  necessary  for 
its  fulfilment;  and  secondly,  the  duty  by  which  all 
were  bound  to  agree  in  the  profession  of  one  faith  with 
Peter.  So  that  Peter’s  dignity,  rightly  termed  the 
Primacy  of  faith,  mainly  consists  in  the  supreme  right 
of  demanding  from  all  an  agreement  in  faith  with  him. 

It1  remains  to  explain  the  proper  force  of  the  word 
confirm .  Now,  this  is  a  term  of  architecture,  and  as 
such  is  joined  with  other  terms  relating  to  that  art, 
as  by  St  Peter,  “  the  God  of  all  grace  .  .  .  himself 
fit  you  together  ”  (as  living  spiritual  stones),  “  confirm, 
strengthen,  ground  you.”2  It  means,  to  make  any¬ 
thing  fit  so  firmly  that  it  cannot  be  shaken.  Thus  in 
Holy  Writ  it  frequently  bears  metaphorically  a  moral 
signification,  such  as  encouraging,  supporting,  as  we 
say,  confirming  the  resolution,  as  in  the  passage  just 
1  Passaglia,  p.  563.  ,  2  1  Pet.  v  10. 


6o 


ST  PETER :  HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE 


quoted;  and  again,  “  Be  watchful,  and  confirm  the 
things  that  remain,  which  are  ready  to  die.”1  Now, 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  phrase  “  confirm  thy 
brethren,”  carries  a  moral  sense  very  like  that  in 
which  the  word  confirm,  when  applied  to  the 
spiritual  building  of  the  Church,  is  used  of  God 
and  of  Christ,2  from  whom  the  Church  has  both  its 
being  and  its  perseverance  to  the  end,  and  again  of  the 
Apostles,  who  strengthen  the  flock  entrusted  to  them 
by  the  imparting  spiritual  gifts,  as  St  Paul  says,  “  I 
long  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart  unto  you  some 
spiritual  grace  to  strengthen  you.”3  Or,  again,  it  is 
used  of  bishops,  who,  as  sent  by  the  Apostles,  and 
charged  by  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  government  of  the 
Church,  are  bid  to  be  watchful  and  see  that  those  who 
stand  do  not  fall,  and  those  who  are  in  danger  do  not 
perish.4  Accordingly,  when  it  is  said  to  Peter,  “  And 
thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren,”  the 
charge  and  office  are  laid  upon  him ,  as  an  architect 
divinely  chosen ,  of  holding  together ,  strengthening ,  and 
keeping  in  their  place  the  several  parts  of  the  ecclesi¬ 
astical  structure . 

But  what  are  these  parts  to  be  confirmed,  and  what 
is  the  nature  of  the  confirmation  ? 

As  to  the  first  question  there  can  be  no  controversy, 
it  being  determined  by  the  words  “  confirm  thy 
brethren”  and  it  is  plain,  from  what  is  said  above, 
that  by  brethren  are  meant  the  Apostles.  He  had, 
therefore,  the  Apostles  committed  to  his  charge 

1  Apoc.  iii  2. 

2  Rom.  xvi  25;  1  Thess.  iii  13;  2Thess.  ii  17;  1  Pet.  v  10. 

8  Rom.  in.  4  Apoc.  iii  2. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  6 1 

immediately ;  but  likewise,  the  rest  of  all  the  faithful 
mediately.  When  a  person  has  been  named  by  Christ 
to  confirm  the  Apostles  expressly,  the  nature  of  the 
case  does  not  allow  that  the  whole  congregation  of 
believers  be  not  in  their  persons  committed  to  him. 
The  care  of  the  flock  is  manifestly  involved  in  the  care 
of  the  shepherds;  and  no  one  in  his  senses  can  doubt 
that  the  man  who  is  charged  to  support  the  pillars 
is  charged  to  keep  in  their  place  the  inferior 
stones. 

And  as  to  the  nature  of  the  confirmation,  it  is  for 
protection  against  the  fraud  of  the  great  enemy.  And 
the  danger  lay  in  losing  the  faith.  Peter,  then,  is 
charged  to  confirm,  in  such  sense  that  neither  the 
pillars  of  the  Church,  nor  its  inferior  parts,  may,  by 
the  loss  of  faith,  be  moved  from  their  place,  and  so 
severed  from  the  Church’s  structure.  No  charge 
can  be  higher  than  such  an  office  of  confirmation ;  nor 
for  anything  need  we  to  be  more  thankful  to  our 
Saviour.  Nothing  can  more  distinctly  show  the 
divinely  appointed  relation  between  Peter  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other,  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  and 
the  whole  company  of  the  faithful;  nothing  define 
more  clearly  the  special  authority  of  Peter;  that  is,  to 
protect  and  strengthen  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  to 
possess  all  powers  needed  for  such  protection. 

This  charge  was  given  after  that  by  the  prayer 
of  Christ  the  privilege  had  been  gained  for  Peter’s 
faith,  that  it  should  never  fail.  Hence,  that  faith  is 
become,  in  virtue  of  such  prayer,  the  infallible  standard 
of  evangelical  truth:  as  St  Cyprian  expressed  it  of 
old,  “  that  faith  of  the  Romans,  which  perfidy  cannot 


62 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


approach.”1  It  follows  that  all  the  faithful  owe  to  it 
obedience.  And  Peter’s  authority  rests  on  a  double 
title,  external  of  mission,  internal  of  spiritual  gift:  the 
former  contained  in  the  words  of  Christ  the  legis¬ 
lator,  “  And  thou,2  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy 
brethren;”  the  latter,  in  the  words  of  Christ  the 

1  St  Cyprian,  Ep.  55. 

3  As  far  as  the  words  by  themselves  go,  it  is  the  opinion  of 
the  best  commentators  that  they  may  be  equally  well  ren¬ 
dered,  “  And  thou,  when  thou  art  converted,”  or  “  And 
thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day,”  etc.  But  as  it  is  impossible  to 
bring  a  discussion  turning  on  a  Hebrew  idiom  conveyed  in 
a  Greek  word  before  the  English  reader,  we  must  here 
restrict  ourselves  to  the  proof  arising  from  the  sense  and 
context.  And  here  one  thing  alone,  among  several  which 
may  be  urged,  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  sense  preferred 
in  the  text,  “  And  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy 
brethren,”  is  the  true  one.  For  the  other  rendering  sup¬ 
poses  that  the  time  of  Peter’s  conversion  would  also  be  the 
time  of  his  confirming  his  brethren;  whereas  this  was  far 
otherwise.  He  was  converted  by  our  Lord  looking  on  him 
that  same  night  shortly  after  his  denial,  and  “  immediately 
went  out  and  wept  bitterly.”  But  he  did  not  succeed  to  the 
charge  of  confirming  his  brethren  till  after  our  Lord’s 
ascension.  It  must  be  added  that  the  collocation  of  the 
original  words  icai  av  7r ot£  iTriorptyag  crrrjpi^ov  is  such  as 
absolutely  to  require  that  the  joint  action  indicated  by  them 
should  belong  to  the  same  time,  and  that  an  indefinite  time 
expressed  by  tcotL  Now  this  would  be  false  according  to 
the  rendering,  “  And  thou,  when  thou  art  converted,  confirm 
thy  brethren,”  for  the  conversion  was  immediate  and  definite, 
the  confirmation  distant  and  indefinite;  whereas  it  exactly 
agrees  with  the  rendering,  “  And  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day 
confirm  thy  brethren.” 

Those  who  wish  to  see  the  whole  controversy  adfnirably 
drawn  out,  may  find  it  in  Passaglia,  b.  ii,  ch.  13. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  63 

bestower  of  all  gifts,  “  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
that  thy  faith  fail  not.” 

More  than  a  thousand  years  ago  two  Easterns  seem 
to  have  expressed  all  this,  one  the  Bishop  Stephen, 
suppliantly  approaching  Pope  Martin  I,  in  the  Lateran 
Synod  of  a.d.  649,  and  speaking  of  “  the  blessed 
Peter,  in  a  manner  special  and  peculiar  to  himself, 
having  above  all  a  firm  and  immutable  faith  in  our 
Lord  God,  to  consider  with  compassion,  and  confirm 
his  spiritual  partners  and  brethren  when  tossed  by 
doubt:  inasmuch  as  he  has  received  powTer  and  sacer¬ 
dotal  authority,  according  to  the  dispensation  over  all, 
from  the  very  God  for  our  sakes  incarnate.”1  And 
Theodore,  Abbot  of  the  Studium,  at  Constantinople, 
addressing  Pope  Paschal  I,  a.d.  817,  in  the  midst  of 
persecution  from  the  state,  as  if  he  were  Peter  himself: 
“  Hear,  O  Apostolic  Head,  O  shepherd  of  the  sheep 
of  Christ,  set  over  them  by  God,  O  doorkeeper  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  O  rock  of  the  faith  upon  which  the 
Catholic  Church  is  built.  For  Peter  art  thou,  who 
adornest  and  governest  the  See  of  Peter.  To  thee, 
said  Christ  our  God,  *  And  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day 
confirm  thy  brethren/  Behold  the  time,  behold  the 
place,  help  us,  thou  who  art  ordained  by  God  for  this. 
Stretch  forth  thy  hand  as  far  as  may  be:  power  thou 
hast  from  God,  because  thou  art  the  chief  of  all.”2 

Now  let  us3  view  in  its  connection  the  whole  scope 
of  our  Lord’s  discourse.  We  shall  see  how  naturally 
the  contest  of  the  Apostles  arose  out  of  what  he  had 
told  them,  and  how  well  the  former  and  the  latter  part 

1  Mansi,  Concilia,  x  894. 

2  Baronius,  Annal.,  a.d.  817,  xxi. 


3  Passaglia,  p.  545. 


64  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

of  his  answer  harmonize  together,  and  terminate  that 
contest.  We  learn  from  St  John’s  record  of  this 
divine  conversation,  that  our  Lord  besought  his  Father, 
saying,  “  While  I  was  with  them  in  the  world,  I  kept 
them  in  thy  name  .  .  .  but  now  I  come  to  thee:” 
that  is,  so  long  as  I  was  with  them  visibly  in  the  world 
(for  invisibly  I  will  always  be  with  them,  and  nurture 
them  with  the  spiritual  influx  of  the  Vine),  I  kept 
them  united  in  thy  name;  “  but  now  I  come  to  thee,” 
I  leave  the  world,  I  relinquish  the  office  of  visible 
head.  It  remains,  that  by  the  appointment  of  another 
visible  head,  thou  shouldst  entrust  him  with  my  office, 
provide  for  the  conspicuous  unity  of  all,  and  preserve 
them  joined  unto  each  other  and  to  us.  So  St  Luke 
tells  us,  that  no  sooner  had  our  Lord  declared  to  the 
Apostles,  “  the  Son  of  Man  indeed  goeth  according 
to  that  which  is  determined,”  than  they  began  to  have 
a  strife  among  them,  “  which  of  them  should  seem  to 
be  the  greater.”  For  they  had  heard  that  Christ 
would  withdraw  his  visible  presence,  and  they  had 
heard  him  also  earnestly  entreating  of  the  Father  to 
provide  for  their  visible  unity.  Accordingly,  the  time 
seemed  at  hand  when  another  was  to  take  this  office  of 
visible  head;  hence  their  questioning,  who  should  be 
the  greater  among  them.  Now  our  Lord  does  not 
reprove  this  inference  of  theirs,  but  he  does  reprove 
the  temper  in  which  they  were  coveting  pre-eminence. 
For,  engaged  as  they  were  in  the  strife,  he  warned 
them  that  the  person  who  should  be  “  the  Greater  and 
the  Ruler  ”  among  them,  must  follow  in  the  discharge 
of  his  office  the  rule  and  the  standard  which  he  had  set 
up  in  his  own  conduct,  and  not  that  which  the  kings 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  65 

of  the  Gentiles  follow.  Thus,  setting  these  in  sharp 
contrast,  he  proceeds:  “  The  kings,  indeed,  of  the 
nations  lord  it  over  their  subjects  and  love  high  titles, 
and  to  be  called  benefactors;  but  I,  though  Lord  and 
Master  amongst  you,  have  dealt  otherwise,  as  you  know. 
For  I  have  exercised,  not  a  lordship,  but  a  servitude; 
I  have  not  sat  at  table,  but  waited;  I  have  not  cared  for 
titles,  but  called  you  friends  and  brethren.  Let  this 
example,  then,  be  before  you  all,  but  especially  before 
him  who  is  to  be  the  greater  and  the  ruler  among  you. 
For  I  appoint  unto  you,  and  dispose  of  you,  as  my 
Father  hath  disposed  of  me;  of  me  he  hath  disposed 
that  through  humiliation,  emptying  of  myself,  ig¬ 
nominy,  and  manifold  temptations,  I  should  gain  the 
kingdom,  reach  the  joys  of  heaven,  and  obtain  all 
power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  So  likewise  dispose  I 
of  you,  that  through  humility,  sufferings,  reproaches, 
hunger,  thirst,  and  all  manner  of  temptations,  you  may 
reach  whither  I  have  come,  being  worthy,  after  your 
hunger  and  your  thirst,  to  eat  and  drink  at  my  table 
in  my  kingdom;  after  being  despised  and  dishonoured, 
to  sit  on  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
Now,  hitherto  you  have  trodden  with  me  this  royal 
way  full  of  sorrows,  and  have  continued  with  me  in 
my  temptations.  But  little  will  it  profit  to  begin,  if 
you  persevere  not  to  the  end.  None  shall  be  crowned, 
save  he  who  has  contended  lawfully;  none  be  saved, 
but  he  who  perseveres  to  the  end.  Will  you  remain 
with  me  still  in  your  temptations  to  come,  and  when 
I  am  no  longer  present  with  you  visibly,  to  protect  and 
exhort,  will  you  preserve  your  steadfastness  ?  Simon, 
Simon,  behold  !  I  see  Satan  exerting  all  his  force  to 

5 


66 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


overcome  your  purpose,  and  to  destroy  the  fidelity 
which  you  have  hitherto  shown  me.  I  see  the  danger 
to  your  faith  and  your  salvation  approaching.  But  I, 
who,  when  visibly  present  with  you,  left  nothing  un¬ 
done  to  guard,  protect,  and  strengthen  you  visibly, 
so,  too,  when  separated  from  your  bodily  sight,  will 
yet  not  leave  you  without  a  visible  support.  Where¬ 
fore,  Peter,  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thou  fail  not, 
and  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren. 
Remember  that  thou  hast  to  discharge  that  part 
visibly  towards  thy  brethren,  which  I,  while  yet 
mortal  and  visible,  discharged;  remember  that  I 
therefore  had  special  care  of  thee,  because  it  was 
my  will  that  thou,  confirmed  by  my  prayers,  shouldst 
confirm  thy  brethren,  my  disciples,  and  my  friends.”  1 

Now,  from2  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that 
Peter  in  Holy  Scripture  is  set  forth  as  the  source  and 
principle  of  ecclesiastical  unity  under  a  double  but 
cognate  image,  as  Foundation,  and  as  Confirmer.  Of 
the  former  we  will  here  say  nothing  further,  but  a  few 
consequences  of  the  latter  it  is  desirable  here  to  group 
together. 

I.  The  unity,  then,  which  consists  in  the  profession 
of  one  and  the  same  faith,  is  conspicuous  among  those3 
modes  of  unity  by  which  Christ  has  willed  that  his 
Church  should  be  distinguished.  Now,  first,  St  Paul 
declares  that  the  whole  ministerial  hierarchy,  from  the 
Apostolate  downwards,  was  instituted  by  our  Lord, 
for  the  sake  of  obtaining  and  preserving  this  unity. 
“  He  gave  some  Apostles,  and  some  Prophets,  and 

1  Passaglia,  p.  547.  2  Ibid p.  571. 

3  For  which  see  hereafter,  Ch.  VII. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  67 

other  some  Evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors  and 
doctors,  for  the  perfecting  ”  literally,  the  fitting  in 
together,  the  same  word  which  St  Peter  had  used 
in  his  prayer,  ch.  v  10),  “of  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ; 
until  we  all  meet  into  the  unity  of  faith,  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  age  of  the  fulness  of  Christ.,,  1 
To  this  living  hierarchy  he  expressly  attributes  pre¬ 
servation  from,  doctrinal  error,  proceeding  thus: 
“  That  henceforth  we  be  no  more  children  tossed  to 
and  fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine, 
by  the  wickedness  of  men,  by  cunning  craftiness  by 
which  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.”  And,  secondly, 
this  hierarchy  itself  was  knitted  and  gathered  up  into 
a  monarchy,  and  its  whole  force  and  solidity  made 
to  depend  on  association  with  Peter,  to  whom  alone 
was  said,  “  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith 
fail  not;”  to  whom  alone  was  enjoined,  “And  thou, 
in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren.” 

II.  Accordingly  the  pre-eminence  of  Peter  is  well 
expressed  by  the  words,2  “  Primacy  of  faith,”  “  chief- 
ship  of  faith,”  “  chiefship  in  the  episcopate  of  faith,” 
meaning  thereby  a  peculiar  authority  to  prescribe  the 
faith  and  determine  its  profession,  and  so  protect  its 
unity  and  purity.  This  is  conveyed  in  the  words  of 
Christ,  Confirm  thy  brethren.  Thus  St  Bernard3 

1  Eph.  iv  1 1. 

2  Petrus  uti  audivit,  vos  autem  quid  me  dicitis  ?  Statim 
loci  non  immemor  sui  primatum  egit ;  primatum  confessionis 
utique,  non  honoris;  primatum  fidei,  non  ordinis. — Ambros. 
de  Incarn.,  c.  4,  n.  32,  tom.  2,  p.  710 

3  Ep.  190,  vol.  1,  p.  649. 


68  ST  PETER :  HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE 

addressed  Innocent  II,  “  All  emergent  dangers  and 
scandals  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  specially  those  which 
concern  the  faith,  are  to  be  referred  to  your  Apostolate. 
For  I  conceive  that  we  should  look  especially  for 
reparation  of  the  faith  to  the  spot  where  faith  cannot1 
fail.  That  indeed  is  the  prerogative  of  his  see.  For 
to  whom  else  was  it  once  said,  ‘  I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
Peter,  that  thy  faith  fail  not  ’  ?  Therefore  what 
follows  is  required  of  Peter’s  successor:  ‘  And  thou,  in 
thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren.’  And  this  is 
now  necessary.  It  is  time  for  you,  most  loving  father, 
to  recognize  your  chiefship,  to  approve  your  zeal,  and 
so  make  your  ministry  honoured.  In  that  you  clearly 
fulfil  the  part  of  Peter,  whose  seat  you  occupy,  if  by 
your  admonition  you  confirm  hearts  fluctuating  in  faith, 
if  by  your  authority  you  crush  those  who  corrupt  it.” 

III.  All  who  have  received  the  ministry  of  the  word, 
and  the  charge  of  defending  the  faith  and  preserving 
unity,  and  are  “  ambassadors  in  Christ’s  name,”  have 
a  claim  to  be  listened  to,  but  he  above  all  who  holds 
the  chiefship  of  faith,  and  who  received  the  charge, 
“  Confirm  thy  brethren.”  He  therefore  must  be  the 
supreme  standard  of  faith,  which  is  just  what  St  Peter 
Chrysologus,  in  the  fifth  century,  wrote  to  Eutyches: 
“  We  exhort  you  in  all  things,  honourable  brother,  to 
pay  obedience  to  what  is  written  by  the  most  blessed 
Pope  of  the  Roman  city;  for  St  Peter,  who  both  lives 
and  rules  in  his  own  see,  grants  to  those  who  ask  for 
it  the  truth  of  faith.”2 

1  St  Cyprian  in  the  third  century,  uses  the  same  expression. 
Ep.  55- 

2  Twenty-fifth  letter  among  those  of  St  Leo. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  69 

IV.  And  in  this  prerogative  of  Peter,  to  be  heard 
above  all  others,  we  find  the  meaning  of  certain  ancient 
expressions.  Thus  Prudentius  calls  him,  “  the  first 
disciple  of  God  ’’j1  St  Augustine,  “  the  figure  of  the 
Church  ”;2  St  Chrysostom,  “  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
disciples,  and  teacher  of  the  world”;3  St  Ephrem 
Syrus,  “  the  candle,  the  tongue  of  the  disciples,  and  the 
voice  of  preachers”;4  St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  “  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  highest  preacher  of  the 
Church.”5  In  these  and  such-like  continually  re¬ 
curring  expressions  we  recognize  his  chiefship  in  the 
episcopate  of  faith,  his  being  the  standard  of  faith,  and 
his  representing  the  Catholic  faith,  as  the  branches  are 
gathered  up  in  the  root,  and  the  streamlets  in  the 
fountain. 

V.  Our  Lord6  has  most  solemnly  declared,  and  St 
Paul  repeated,  that  no  one  shall  be  saved  without 
maintaining  the  true  and  uncorrupt  faith.  Of  this 
Peter’s  faith  is  the  standard  and  exemplar.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  by  the  law  of  Christ,  unity  with  the  faith  of  Peter 
is  necessary  to  salvation.  This  law  our  Lord  set  forth 
in  the  words,  “  Confirm  thy  brethren.”  And  to  this 
the  Fathers  in  their  expressions  above  quoted  allude. 

VI.  The  true  faith  and  the  true  Church  are  so  in- 
divisibly  united,  that  they  cannot  even  be  conceived 
apart  from  each  other,  faith  being  to  the  Church  as 

1  Con.  Symmachum,  lib.  2,  v.  1. 

2  Sermon  76.  3  Horn.  88  on  John. 

4  Encom.  in  Petrum  et  caeteros  Apostolos. 

6  Cat.  xi,  n.  3  :  0  TTpuTOGTarpe  tmv  ’A7ro<7ro\wj'  icai  Tijt;  IkkXij- 

aictQ  KopvfpaioQ  Kppv'i. 

6  Mark  xvi  16;  John  iii  18;  Rom.  iii  3,  etc. 


70  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

light  to  the  sun.  But  the  true  faith  neither  is  nor  can 
be  other  than  that  which  Peter,  “  the  first  disciple  of 
God,”  “  the  teacher  of  the  world,”  “  the  mouthpiece 
of  the  disciples,”  and  “  the  confirmer  of  his  brethren,” 
holds  and  proposes  to  others.  No  communion,  there¬ 
fore,  called  after  Christ,  which  yet  differs  from  that 
faith  can  claim  either  the  name  or  dignity  of  the  true 
Church. 

VII.  If  any  knowledge  have  a  special  value,  it  is 
surely  that  by  which  we  have  a  safe  and  ready  test  of 
the  true  faith  and  the  true  Church.  It  is  of  the 
utmost  necessity  to  know  and  embrace  both,  and  the 
means  of  reaching  them  are  proportionably  valuable. 
Now  that  test  abides  in  Peter,  by  keeping  which  before 
us  we  can  neither  miss  the  true  faith  nor  the  true 
Church.  For  no  other  true  faith  can  there  be  than 
that  which  he  delivers  who  received  the  charge  of 
confirming  his  brethren,  nor  other  true  Church  than 
what  Christ  built,  and  is  building  still.  Hence  the 
expression  of  St  Ambrose,  “  Where  Peter  is,  there  is 
the  Church  ’’j1  and  of  Stephen  of  Larissa,  to  Pope 
Boniface  II  (a.d.  530),  “  that  all  the  Churches  of  the 
world  rest  in  the  confession  of  Peter.”2 

VIII.  With  all  these  agrees  that  famous  and  most 
early  testimony  of  St  Cyprian,  that  men  “  fall  away 
from  the  Church  into  heresy  and  schism  so  long  as 
there  is  no  regard  to  the  source  of  truth ,  no  looking  to 
the  heady  nor  keeping  to  the  doctrine  of  our  heavenly 
Master.  If  any  one  consider  and  weigh  this,  he  will 
not  need  length  of  comment  or  argument.  It  is  easy 

1  Ambros.  in  Ps.  1,  n.  30. 

2  Mansi,  tom.  viii  746. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  71 

to  offer  proofs  to  a  faithful  mind,  because  in  that  case 
the  truth  may  be  quickly  stated.”1  And  then  he 
quotes  our  Lord’s  words  to  Peter,  Matt,  xvi  16,  and 
John  xxi  17,  adding,  “  upon  him  being  one  he  builds 
his  church.”  Therefore  that  Church  can  neither  be 
torn  from  the  one  on  whom  she  is  built,  nor  profess 
any  other  faith,  save  what  that  one,  who  is  Peter, 
proposes. 


1  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae,  3. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  INVESTITURE  OF  PETER 

Our  Lord  has  hitherto,  while  on  earth,1  ruled  as  its 
visible  head  that  body  of  disciples  which  he  had  chosen 
out  of  the  world,  and  which  his  Father  had  given  him. 
And  this  body  he  for  the  first  time  called  the  Church 
in  that  famous  prophecy2  wherein  he  named  the 
person,  who,  by  virtue  of  an  intimate  association  with 
himself,  the  Rock,  should  be  its  foundation.  Its 
duration  until  the  consummation  of  the  world,  he 
pronounced  at  the  same  time,  in  spite  of  all  the  rage 
of  “  spiritual  wickedness  in  high  places  ”  against  it, 
because  it  was  to  be  founded  upon  the  rock  which  he 
should  lay. 

Secondly,  he  had,  at  that  period  of  his  ministry  when 
he  thought  it  meet,  the  second  year,  selected  out  of  the 
rest  of  his  disciples,  after  ascending  into  a  mountain 
and  continuing  the  night  long  in  prayer,  twelve  whom 
he  named  Apostles — as  before  and  above  all  sent  by 
him.  “  He  called  whom  he  would  himself,  and  they 
came  to  him.”  To  them  “  he  gave  authority  over 
unclean  spirits,  to  cast  them  out,  and  to  heal  every 
disease  and  every  weakness.”  He  chose  them  also 
“  to  be  with  him,”  his  personal  friends,  “  and  he  sent 
them  to  preach.”  To  them,  moreover,  he  subse¬ 
quently  made  a  promise  that  whatever  they  should 


1  Passaglia,  p.  93. 


2  Matt,  xvi  16. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  73 

bind  on  earth  should  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  what¬ 
ever  they  should  loose  on  earth  should  be  loosed  in 
heaven.1 

Thirdly,  as  at  a  certain  time  in  his  ministry,  that  is 
the  second  year,  he  had  selected  twelve  to  be  nearer 
his  person  than  the  rest  of  his  disciples,  so  at  a  yet  later 
time,  the  third  year  of  his  ministry,  he  had  set  apart 
one  out  of  the  twelve,  to  whom  from  the  very  first,  and 
before  either  he,  or  any  one,  had  been  called  to  be  an 
Apostle,  or  even,  as  it  would  seem,  a  disciple,  he  had 
given  a  prophetic  name.  By  word  and  deed,  in  corre¬ 
spondence  with  that  name,  he  designated  Peter  to  be 
the  future  rock  of  his  Church,  to  be  the  bearer  of  the 
keys,  which  opened  or  shut  the  entrance  to  his  mystical 
Holy  City,  to  be  endued  with  power  singly  to  bind  and 
to  loose.  Finally,  on  the  very  eve  of  his  being  taken 
away  from  his  disciples,  he  pointed  out  Peter  as  the 
future  “  First  one,”  “  Greater  one,”  or  “  Ruler,” 
among  them,  having,  as  such,  had  given  to  him  a  special 
and  singular  charge,  after  the  departure  of  the  Head, 
to  “  confirm  his  brethren.” 

It  is  manifest  that  this  was  all  which,  before  his 
offering  himself  up  for  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  the 
withdrawal  of  his  visible  presence  thereupon  ensuing, 
he  could  do  for  the  government  of  his  Church.  For  as 
long  as  he  was  there,  the  Son  of  Man  among  men,  seen, 
felt,  touched,  and  handled,  the  sacred  voice  in  their 
ears,  and  the  divine  eyes  gazing  bodily  upon  them,  he 
was  not  only  the  fountain  of  all  headship  and  rule,  but 
he  exercised  in  his  own  person  the  highest  functions 
of  that  headship  and  visible  rule.  He  daily  en- 

1  Matt,  x  i ;  Mark  iii  13-15  ;  Luke  vi  12,  13  ;  Matt,  xviii  18. 


74  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

couraged,  warned,  corrected,  taught,  united  them;  in 
short,  to  use  his  own  words,  “  while  he  was  with  them, 
he  kept  them  in  his  Father’s  name.”1 

But  now  another  time,  and  other  dangers  were 
approaching.  The  sword  was  drawn  which  should 
“  strike  the  shepherd,”  there  was  a  fear  that  “  the 
sheep  would  be  scattered,”  not  only  for  a  moment,  but 
for  ever.  To  meet  this  the  care  of  the  Divine  Guardian 
was  necessary  in  a  further  disposition  of  those  powers 
which  he  received  at  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
For  henceforth  his  visits,  as  of  a  risen  King,  were  to  be 
few  and  sudden,  when  he  pleased,  and  at  times  they 
expected  not,  “  for  forty  days  appearing  to  them  and 
speaking  of  the  kingdom  of  God,”  and  as  soon  as  his 
final  injunctions  had  been  thus  royally  given,  “  the 
heavens  were  to  receive  him  till  the  time  of  the  res¬ 
toration  of  all  things.”  The  Apostles  could  no  longer 
“  be  with  him,”  as  before,  nor  he  “  keep  them,”  as  in 
the  days  of  his  flesh. 

How,  then,  does  he  complete  the  ministerial  hier¬ 
archy  which  sprung  from  his  own  divine  person  on 
earth,  and  which  is  to  rule  his  Church  and  represent 
that  person  from  his  first  to  his  second  coming  P 

Now,  first,  we  must  remark,  that  while  great  care 
is  taken  to  make  known  to  all  the  Apostles  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  the  Lord,  yet  a  special  solicitude  is  shown 
with  regard  to  that  one  who  was  to  be  “  the  Ruler.” 
Thus  the  angels,  announcing  the  fact  to  the  holy 
women  at  the  sepulchre,  “  He  is  risen,  he  is  not  here, 
behold  the  place  where  they  laid  him,”  add,  “  but  go, 
tell  his  disciples  and  Peter ,  that  he  goeth  before  you 

1  John  xvii  12. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


75 


into  Galilee.”1  The  expression  indicates  his  superior 
place,  as  when  Peter,  himself  delivered  from  prison, 
recounted  to  the  disciples  at  the  house  of  Mark  his 
escape,  and  added,  “  Tell  these  things  to  James  and  to 
the  brethren,”  where  no  one  fails  to  see  the  pre¬ 
eminence  given  to  James  by  such  a  mention  of  him, 
that  Apostle  being  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  and  so  put 
over  the  brethren,  and,  with  himself,  one  of  those  who 
“  seemed  to  be  pillars.”  Again,  to  Peter  our  Lord 
appeared  first  among  the  Apostles.  St  Paul,  exhibiting 
a  sort  of  sum  of  Christian  doctrine,  as  he  says  “  the 
Gospel  which  I  preached  unto  you,”  begins,  “  I 
delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  re¬ 
ceived,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to 
the  Scriptures;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he 
rose  again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  that  he  was  seen  by  Cephas,  and  after  that  by  the 
eleven.”  By  him  alone  first,  then  by  them  in  con¬ 
junction  with  him.  And  further,  St  Paul’s  words 
seem  to  express  a  sort  of  descending  ratio,  “  Then  was 
he  seen  by  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  at  once, 
of  whom  many  remain  until  this  present,  and  some  are 
fallen  asleep.  After  that  he  was  seen  by  James,  then 
by  all  the  Apostles.  And  last  of  all  he  was  seen  also 
by  me,  as  by  one  born  out  of  due  time.  For  I  am  the 
least  of  the  Apostles.”2  And  while  they  were  yet  in 
doubt,  and  for  joy  could  not  receive  the  marvellous 
tidings  when  brought  by  the  women,  as  soon  as  our 
Lord  appeared  to  Peter  their  hesitation  was  removed, 
and  the  two  disciples  returning  from  Emmaus — them¬ 
selves  full  of  his  wonderful  conversation  with  them — 
1  Mark  xvi  6.  2  i  Cor.  xv  1-9. 


76  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

“  found  the  eleven  gathered  together  and  those  that 
were  with  them,  saying,  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and 
hath  appeared  to  Simon.”  This  the  Church  in  her 
exultation  repeats,  where  philologists  tell  us  that  the 
Greek  and  bears  what  is  often  the  Hebrew  meaning, 
and  signifies  “  for,”  as  if  no  doubt  could  remain  any 
longer  of  their  happiness,  when  Peter  had  become  a 
witness  of  it. 

These  are  indications  of  superiority,  slight  perhaps 
in  themselves  if  they  stood  alone,  but  not  slight  as 
bearing  tacit  witness  to  a  fact  otherwise  resting  on  its 
own  explicit  evidence.  If  one  of  the  Apostles  was 
destined  to  be  the  head  of  the  rest,  this  is  what  we 
should  have  expected  to  happen  to  that  one,  and  this 
did  happen  to  Peter,  who  is  elsewhere  made  the  head 
of  the  Apostles. 

But  now  we  come  to  those  most  important  injunc¬ 
tions  which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  Apostles  after  his 
Resurrection,  concerning  the  government  of  his  Church. 
And  here  it  becomes  necessary  to  mark  with  the  utmost 
accuracy  what  he  said  and  what  he  gave  to  all  the 
Apostles  in  common,  and  what  to  Peter  in  particular. 

First  of  all,  then,  we  may  remark  our  Lord’s  care  to 
redeem  the  promises  which  he  had  made  to  the  Twelve, 
and  to  convey  to  them  their  legislative,  judicial,  and 
executive  powers.  These  are  mentioned  by  each  of 
the  four  Evangelists,  in  somewhat  different  terms,  but 
alike  involving  the  distinctive  Apostolic  powers  of 
immediate  institution  by  Christ,  and  universal  mission ; 
as  Apostles  they  are  sent ,  and  they  are  sent  by  Christ. 
The  form  recorded  in  St  Matthew  is,  “  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  there- 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


77 


fore,  and  make  disciples  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you ;  and  behold  I  am  with  you  all 
days,  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world.” 

The  form  of  St  Mark  is,  “  Go  ye  into  the  whole 
world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.” 

St  Luke  refers  specially  in  two  passages  to  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  being  himself  as  well 
the  divine  “  Gift,”  and  the  immediate  worker  of  all 
graces  in  man,  as  the  principle  of  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy.  “  And  I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father 
upon  you,  but  stay  you  in  the  city  till  you  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high.”  And  again,  “  Eating 
together  with  them,  he  commanded  them  that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  should  wait  for 
the  promise  of  the  Father,  which  you  have  heard,” 
saith  he,  “  by  my  mouth;  for  John,  indeed,  baptized 
with  water,  but  you  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  not  many  days  hence.”  “  You  shall  receive 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  upon  you,  and 
you  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all 
Judea,  and  Samaria,  and  even  to  the  uttermost  part  of 
the  earth.” 

The  form  recorded  by  St  John  is,  “  As  the  Father 
hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.  When  he  had  said  this, 
he  breathed  on  them;  and  he  said  to  them,  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost;  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven  them;  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain,  they 
are  retained.”1 

1  Matt,  xxviii  18;  Mark  xvi  15 ;  Luke  xxiv  49;  Acts  i  4-8; 
John  xx  21. 


j8  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Now,  it  may  be  remarked  that  these  passages  of  the 
several  Evangelists  are  identical  in  their  force;  that  is, 
they  each  convey  all  those  powers  which  constitute 
the  Apostolate.  These  are  received  by  all  the  Apostles 
in  common,  and  together;  and  in  the  joint  possession 
of  them  consists  that  equality  which  is  often  attributed 
by  the  ancient  writers  to  the  Apostles,  as  notably  by 
St  Cyprian.  “  He  gives  to  all  the  Apostles  an  equal 
power,  and  says,  4  As  the  Father  sent  me,  I  also  send 
you/  ”  And  again,  “  Certainly,  the  other  Apostles 
also  were  what  Peter  was,  endued  with  an  equal  fellow¬ 
ship,  both  of  honour  and  power.”1 

And  these  Apostolic  powers,  legislative,  judicial, 
and  executive,  are  afterwards  referred  to  as  exercised. 
Thus,  in  Acts  xv,  the  first  council  passes  decrees  which 
bind  the  Church ;  nay,  which  go  forth  in  the  joint  name 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Rulers  of  the  Church: 
“  It  hath  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us.” 
These  powers  are  delivered  by  St  Paul  to  the  cities  to 
be  kept  (Acts  xvi  4).  Again,  in  Acts  xx  28,  Bishops  are 
charged  to  rule  the  Church,  each  over  his  flock,  wherein 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  him.  In  1  Cor.  v  1-5 
St  Paul,  “  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,” 
excommunicates,  and  in  2  Cor.  x  6  he  sets  forth  his 
Apostolic  power.  In  the  Epistles  to  Titus  and 
Timothy  he  sets  them  in  authority,  enjoins  them  to 
ordain  priests  in  every  city,  and  commands  them  to 
“  reprove,”  or  “  rebuke.” 

And  all  these  powers  St  Peter,  of  course,  as  one  of 
the  Twelve,  had  received  in  common  with  the  rest. 
The  limit  to  them  would  seem  to  lie  in  their  being 

1  De  Unitate  Ecclesiae,  3. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


79 


shared  by  twelve;  as,  for  instance,  universal  mission 
dwelling  in  such  a  body  must  practically  be  determined 
and  limited  somehow  to  the  different  members  of  that 
body,  or  one  would  interfere  with  the  other.  But 
there  is  nothing  in  these  powers  which  answers  to  the 
images  of  “  the  rock,”  on  which  the  Church  is  built, 
the  single  “  bearer  of  the  keys,”  and  “  confirmer  ”  of  his 
brethren,  which  Christ  had  appropriated  to  one  Apostle. 

In  like  manner,  then,  as  our  Lord  fulfilled  his 
promises  to  the  Twelve,  so  did  he  those  to  St  Peter,  and 
we  find  written  the  committal  of  an  authority  to  him 
exactly  answering  to  these  images.  This  authority 
expresses  the  full  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
power  of  the  head,  which  can  be  executed  by  one  alone 
at  a  time,  and  is  of  its  own  nature  supreme,  and  re¬ 
sponsible  to  none  save  God.  It  remained  for  our  Lord 
to  find  an  image  setting  forth  all  this  as  decisively  as 
that  of  the  Rock,  the  Bearer  of  the  keys,  and  the  Con¬ 
firmer  of  his  brethren. 

Once,  as  he  passed  along  the  shores  of  the  lake  of 
Galilee,  he  had  seen  two  fishermen  casting  their  net 
into  the  sea,  and  had  “  said  to  them,  Come  after  me, 
and  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men,  and  immediately 
leaving  their  nets,  they  followed  him.”  Once  again, 
too,  he  had  gone  into  the  ship  of  that  same  fisherman, 
and  sitting,  taught  the  multitudes  out  of  it.  And  then 
he  bade  that  fisherman,  “  who  had  laboured  all  the 
night  and  taken  nothing,  to  launch  out  into  the  deep,” 
and  in  faith  “  let  down  his  nets  for  a  draught,”  where¬ 
upon  “  he  enclosed  so  great  a  multitude  of  fishes  that 
the  net  brake.”1  And  again,  in  after  times,  when  the 

1  Mark  i  1 6 ;  Luke  v  3. 


8o 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


fisherman  had  become  an  Apostle,  that  same  ship 
waited  on  his  convenience,  and  carried  him  across  the 
lake.  It  was  there  he  was  asleep  when  the  storm 
raged,  and  his  disciples  in  little  faith  awoke  him,  saying, 
“  Master,  save  us,  we  perish,”  not  yet  knowing  that 
the  ship  which  carried  the  Lord  might  be  tost,  but 
could  not  sink.1  From  it  they  beheld  him  walking 
on  the  sea,  in  the  fourth  watch  of  the  night,  when 
Peter,  in  his  fervour,  desired  to  join  him,  and  going  to 
meet  his  Lord  on  the  waves,  his  faith  failed  him,  and 
he  began  to  sink,  till  the  Almighty  hand  supported  him, 
and  drew  him  with  it  to  the  ship,  which  “  presently 
was  at  the  land  to  which  they  were  going.”2  And 
now,  Peter,  and  Thomas,  and  Nathaniel,  and  the  sons 
of  Zebedee,  and  two  others,  were  once  more  on  that 
same  ship  and  sea,  but  no  longer  with  him  who  had 
commanded  the  winds,  and  walked  on  the  waves. 
Once  more,  too,  they3  toiled  all  the  night,  and  “  caught 
nothing  ”;  when,  lo,  in  the  morning  light,  Jesus  stood 
on  the  shore,  but  yet  unknown  to  them,  and  bade  them 
cast  the  net  on  the  right  side  of  the  ship,  “  and  now 
they  were  not  able  to  draw  it  for  the  multitude  of 
fishes.”  Thus  he  revealed  himself  to  them,  and  in¬ 
vited  them  to  eat  with  him  of  the  fishes  which  they  had 
caught.  “  Then  Simon  Peter  went  up,  and  drew  the 
net  to  land,  full  of  great  fishes,  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
three.  And  although  there  were  so  many,  the  net  was 
not  broken:”  for,  indeed,  that  draught  of  great  fishes, 
gathered  by  Peter  at  Christ’s  command,  betokened 
God’s  elect,  whom  the  Church  is  to  gather  out  of  the 

1  Mark  iv  38;  Luke  viii  24.  2  John  vi  21. 

3  John  xxi  1-14. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  8 1 

sea  of  this  world,  who  cannot  break  from  the  net, 
which  net,  therefore,  Peter  drew  to  land,  even  the  ever¬ 
lasting  shore  whereon  Christ  welcomes  his  own. 
And  after  that  marvellous  banquet  of  the  disciples  with 
their  Lord,  betokening  the  never-ending  marriage- 
feast,  wherein  “  the  roasted  fish  is  Christ  in  His 
passion,”1  our  Lord  proceeds  to  crown  all  that  series 
of  distinctions,  wherewith,  since  imposing  the  pro¬ 
phetic  name,  he  had  marked  out  Simon,  the  son  of 
Jonas,  to  be  the  Leader  of  his  disciples.  Thus  he 
fulfils  by  the  side  of  the  lake  of  Galilee  what  he  fore¬ 
shadowed  when  he  first  looked  upon  Peter,  what  he 
promised  in  the  quarters  of  Cesarea  Philippi,  and  what 
he  repeated  on  the  eve  of  his  passion. 

It  was  his  will  to  appoint  one  to  take  his  place  on 
earth.  Now  he  had  assumed  to  himself  specially  a 
particular  title  under  which  of  old  time  his  prophets 
had  foretold  his  advent  among  men,  and  which  above 
all  others  expressed  his  tender  love  for  fallen  man. 
It  had  been  said  of  him,  “  I  will  set  up  one  shepherd 
over  them,  and  he  shall  feed  them,  even  my  servant 
David:  he  shall  feed  them,  and  he  shall  be  their  shep¬ 
herd.”  And  again,  “  Say  to  the  cities  of  Juda, 
behold  your  God.  .  .  .  He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a 
shepherd:  he  shall  gather  together  the  lambs  with  his 
arm,  and  shall  take  them  up  in  his  bosom,  and  he 
himself  shall  carry  them  that  are  with  young.”  And, 
once  more,  in  the  very  prophecy  by  which  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  declared  to  Herod  that  he  must  be 
born  at  Bethlehem,  “  For  from  thee  shall  go  forth  the 

1  St  Aug.  in  Joan,  cxxii.  “  Piscis  assus  Christus  est 
passus.” 


6 


82  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Ruler,  who  shall  feed  (or  shepherd)  my  people  Israel.” 
Appropriating  these  predictions  to  himself,  the  Lord 
had  said,  “  I  am  the  good  shepherd.  The  good  shep¬ 
herd  giveth  his  life  for  his  sheep.  And  other  sheep  I 
have  which  are  not  of  this  fold ;  them  also  I  must  bring ; 
and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shepherd.”  1  And 
now  it  was  his  pleasure  to  give  this  particular  title,  so 
specially  his  own,  to  Peter,  and  to  Peter  alone,  and  to 
Peter  in  most  marked  contrast  even  with  the  best-beloved 
of  his  other  disciples,  and  to  Peter,  thrice  repeating  the 
charge,  and  varying  the  expression  of  it  so  as  to  include 
the  term  in  its  utmost  force.  “  When,  therefore,  they 
had  dined,  Jesus  said  to  Simon  Peter,  Simon,  son  of 
John,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?  He  saith  to 
him,  Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He 
saith  to  him,  Feed  my  lambs.  He  saith  to  him  again, 
Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  ?  He  saith  to  him, 
Yea,  Lord,  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.  He  saith 
to  him,  Feed  my  lambs.  He  saith  to  him  the  third 
time,  Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest  thou  me  ?  Peter  was 
grieved  because  he  had  said  to  him  the  third  time, 
Lovest  thou  me  ?  And  he  said  to  him,  Lord,  thou 
knowest  all  things:  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee. 
He  said  to  him,  Feed  my  sheep.” 

Our  Lord  had  before  addressed  the  seven  disciples 
present  in  common,  “  Children,  have  you  any  meat  ?” 
“  Cast  the  net,  and  you  shall  find.”  “  Bring  hither 
of  the  fishes  which  you  have  caught.”  “  Come  and 
dine.”  But  now,  turning  to  one  in  particular,  he 
singles  him  out  in  the  most  special  manner,  by  his 

1  Ezech.  xxiv  33;  Isa.  xl  9-1 1;  Mich,  v  2;  Matt,  ii  6; 
John  x 11, 14,  16. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  83 

name,  by  asking  of  him  a  love  greater  than  that  of  any 
other  towards  himself,  by  conferring  on  him  a  charge, 
which,  as  we  shall  see,  from  its  extension  excludes  its 
being  held  in  joint  possession  by  any  other,  and  by 
a  prophecy  concerning  the  manner  of  his  death,  which 
is  wholly  particular  to  Peter.  If  it  is  possible  by  any 
words  to  convey  a  power  and  a  charge  to  a  particular 
person,  and  to  exclude  the  rest  of  the  company  from 
that  special  power  and  charge,  it  is  done  here. 

But,  secondly,  it  is  a  charge  of  a  very  high  and  dis¬ 
tinguishing  nature  indeed,  for  our  Lord  before  con¬ 
ferring  it  demands  of  Peter,  as  a  condition,  greater 
love  towards  his  own  person  than  that  felt  for  him  by 
any  of  the  Twelve — even  by  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  whom 
from  their  zeal  he  surnamed  Boanerges,  sons  of 
thunder — even  by  the  disciple  whom  he  loved,  and 
who  lay  on  his  breast  at  the  Last  Supper.  What  must 
that  charge  be,  the  preliminary  condition  for  which  is 
a  greater  love  for  Jesus  than  that  of  the  beloved  dis¬ 
ciple  ?  What  shall  be  a  fitting  sequel  to  “  Simon,  son 
of  John,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?”  What, 
again,  the  importance  of  that  office,  in  bestowing  which 
our  Lord  thrice  repeats  the  condition,  and  thrice  in¬ 
culcates  the  charge  ?  The  words  of  God  are  not 
spoken  at  random,  nor  his  repetitions  without  effect. 
What,  again,  are  the  subjects  of  the  charge  ?  They 
are  “  my  lambs,”  and  “  my  sheep  that  is,  the  fold 
itself  of  the  Great  Shepherd.  As  he  said,  “  If  I  wash 
thee  not,  thou  shalt  have  no  part  with  me,”  so  those 
who  are  not  either  his  lambs  or  his  sheep  form  no  part 
of  his  fold.  Others,  too,  in  Holy  Writ,  are  addressed 
as  shepherds,  but  with  a  limitation,  as,  “  Take  heed 


84  ST  PETER:  HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE 

to  the  whole  flock  wherein  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  placed 
you  bishops,”  or  “  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is 
among  you .”  And,  more  emphatically  it  was  said,  “  Go 
ye,  therefore,  and  make  disciples  all  nations  and 
“  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel 
to  every  creature.”1  But  they  to  whom  this  was  said 
were  yet  themselves  sheep  of  the  Great  Shepherd,  and 
in  committing  the  world  to  them,  he  did  not  commit 
them  to  each  other.  Whereas  here,  they  too,  as  his 
sheep,  are  committed  to  one,  even  Peter;  and  very  ex¬ 
pressly,  in  the  persons  of  James  and  John,  and  the  rest 
present,  “  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?”  A 
particular  flock  is  never  termed  absolutely  and  simply 
“  the  flock,”  or  “  the  flock  of  God,”  but  “  the  flock 
which  is  among  you”  “  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  you  bishops .”  And  again,  the  Apostles  are  sent 
in  common  to  the  whole  world,  to  preach  to  all  nations, 
and  to  form  one  flock ;  but  they  are  twelve,  and  “  power 
given  to  several  carries  its  restriction  in  its  division, 
whilst  power  given  to  one  alone  and  over  all,  and  with¬ 
out  exception,  carries  with  it  plenitude,  and  not  having 
to  be  divided  with  any  other,  it  has  no  bounds  save 
those  which  its  terms  convey.”2  What  are  the  terms 
here  ?  “  Feed,”  and  “  be  shepherd  over  ”  or  “  rule  ” 

“  my  lambs  and  my  sheep.”  The  terms  have  no 
limit,  save  that  of  salvation  itself.  Such,  then,  are 
the  persons  indicated  as  subjects  of  this  charge.  But 
what  is  the  nature  of  the  charge  ?  Two  different 
words  of  unequal  extent  and  force  in  the  original,  but 
both  rendered  “  feed  ”  in  the  translation,  convey  this. 

1  Acts  xx  28;  1  Pet.  v  10;  Matt,  xxviii  19;  Mark  xvi  15. 

2  Bossuet,  Sermon  sur  V  Unite. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  85 

One  means  “  to  give  food  ”  simply,  the  other,  of  far 
higher  and  nobler  reach,  embraces  every  act  of  care 
and  providence  in  the  government  of  others,  under  an 
image  the  farthest  removed  from  the  spirit  of  pride 
and  ambition.  Such  is  even  its  heathen  meaning,  and 
the  first  of  poets  termed  Agamemnon  by  this  word, 
“  Shepherd  of  the  people.”  By  this  word,  St  Paul 
and  St  Peter1  himself  express  the  power  of  the  bishop 
over  his  own  flock.  And  so  our  Lord,  here  instituting 
the  Bishop  of  bishops,  the  one  Shepherd  of  the  one 
fold,  gives  to  Peter  over  all  his  flock  the  very  word 
given  to  him  in  the  famous  prophecy,  “  Thou,  Beth¬ 
lehem,  the  land  of  Juda,  art  not  the  least  among  the 
princes  of  Juda:  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  the 
captain  that  shall  rule  my  people  Israel.  This  very 
word  used  of  himself  in  Psalm  ii  to  express  all  his  power 
and  dominion,  in  his  revelation  to  St  John  is  spoken 
of  his  own  triumphant  career,  as  the  Word  of  God 
going  forth  to  battle,  “  He  shall  rule  them  with  a  rod 
of  iron.”  Again,  in  the  same  book,  it  is  applied  by 
himself  to  set  forth  the  honour  which  he  will  give  “  to 
him  that  shall  overcome  and  keep  my  works  unto  the 
end.”2  Thus,  just  as  in  the  persons  pointed  out,  the 
subject  of  this  charge  is  universal ,  so  in  the  terms  by 
which  it  is  expressed,  the  nature  of  the  power  is 
supreme.  What  the  bishop  is  to  his  own  flock,  Peter  is 
made  to  “  the  flock  of  God  ”:  and  this  at  once,  in  the 
most  simple,  as  well  as  in  the  most  absolute  and 
emphatic  manner,  by  institution  from  the  Chief 
Shepherd  himself,  at  the  close  of  his  ministry,  and  by 

1  Acts  xx  28;  1  Pet.  v  10;  Ps.  ii  9;  Apoc.  xix  15,  ii  27. 

2  HoLfiaivi.iv  used  in  the  text  of  John,  and  in  all  these. 


86  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

associating  Peter  singly  with  himself  in  his  most  dis¬ 
tinctive  title.  If  the  fold  of  Christ  is  equivalent  to 
“  the  Church  of  Christ,”  and  “  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,”  so  to  feed  and  to  rule  the  lambs  and  the  sheep 
of  that  fold  is  equivalent  to  being  “  the  Rock  ”  of  that 
Church,  and  “  the  Bearer  of  the  keys,”  as  well  as  the 
First ,  the  Greater  one ,  and  the  Ruler  in  that  kingdom 
of  heaven. 

Again,  looking  at  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  charge  is  received  by  Peter,  it  either  conveys  that 
special  and  singular  honour  and  power  which  we  have 
here  set  forth,  or  none  at  all.  For  Peter  had  already 
received  the  full  Apostolic  authority:  he  had  heard 
together  with  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  those  words  of 
power,  “  As  my  Father  sent  me,  I  also  send  you,” 
and  the  charge  following,  to  bind  and  to  loose.  It 
could  not  therefore  be  this  power  which  was  here 
given  him,  for  he  had  it  already.  All  which  James  and 
John,  the  sons  of  thunder,  ever  had  given  them,  he  also 
had  before  these  words  were  uttered.  Besides,  a 
power  which  was  to  be  shared  by  James  and  John,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  could  not  be  given  in  terms 
which  distinguished  him  from  them,  “  Lovest  thou 
me  more  than  these  ?”  It  could  not  be  the  mere 
forgiveness  of  his  denial,  for  not  only  did  the  Apos- 
tolate,  since  conferred,  carry  that,  but  when  our  Lord 
appeared  to  him  first  of  all  the  Apostles  after  his  Re¬ 
surrection,  it  was  a  token  of  such  forgiveness.  There 
remained  nothing  else  to  give  him  but  a  presidency 
over  the  Apostles  themselves,  the  reward  of  superior 
love,  as  was  prophesied  and  promised  to  him  in  reward 
for  superior  faith.  For  these  two  oracles  of  our  Lord 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  87 

exactly  correspond  to  each  other  as  promise  and  per¬ 
formance.  Their  conditions  and  their  terms  shed  a 
reciprocal  light  on  each  other.  In  the  one  there  is  the 
great  confession,  “  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God  ”;  in  the  other  as  singular  a  declaration, 
“  Lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?  Yea,  Lord.” 
In  the  one  there  follows  the  reward,  “  And  I  say  to 
thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,”  etc.;  and  in  the  other  a  like 
reward,  “  Feed  my  lambs,  be  shepherd  over  my 
sheep.”  The  one  is  future,  “  I  will  build,  I  will  give, 
thou  shalt  bind,  thou  shalt  loose  ”;  the  other  present, 
“  Feed,  and  be  shepherd.”  What  concerns  “  the 
Church  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ”  in  the  one, 
concerns  “  the  fold  ”  in  the  other.  And  the  promise 
and  performance  are  singularly  restricted  to  Peter — 
“  I  say  unto  thee,  thou  art  Peter  ” — “  Simon,  son  of 
John,  lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?” 

And  then  Peter  received  the  promise  of  the  supreme 
episcopate  before  all  and  by  himself,  under  the  terms 
that  he  should  be  the  Rock,  by  being  built  on  which 
the  Church  should  never  fall,  that  he  should  be  the 
Bearer  of  the  keys  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  that 
singly  he  should  bind  and  loose  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 
Thus,  after  his  own  Apostolate  and  that  of  the  rest 
had  been  completed,  by  himself,  and  as  the  crown  of 
the  divine  work,  he  received  the  fulfilment  of  that 
supreme  episcopate,  under  the  terms,  “  Feed  my 
lambs,  be  shepherd  over  my  sheep.”  And  as  a  part 
out  of  that  magnificent  promise  made  to  him  singly 
was  afterwards  taken  and  made  to  the  Apostles 
jointly  with  him,  for  so  “it  was  the  design  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  put  first  in  one  alone  what  afterwards  he 


88  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

meant  to  put  in  several;  but  the  sequel  does  not 
reverse  the  beginning,  nor  the  first  lose  his  place. 
That  first  word,  ‘  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind,’  said  to 
one  alone,  has  already  ranged  under  his  power  each 
one  of  those  to  whom  shall  be  said,  ‘  Whatsoever  ye 
shall  remit  for  the  promises  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well 
as  his  gifts,  are  without  repentance ;  and  what  is  once 
given  indefinitely  and  universally  is  irrevocable.”1 
When  Peter  and  the  rest  already  possessed  the  whole 
Apostolate,  that  is,  the  commission  to  go  and  preach 
to  the  whole  world,  and  to  make  disciples  of  all  nations, 
a  power  was  added  to  Peter  to  make  up  what  was 
promised  to  him  originally;  the  Apostles  themselves, 
with  the  whole  fold,  were  put  under  his  charge;  he 
represented  the  person  of  the  Great  Shepherd:  and 
the  divine  work  was  complete. 

Thus  the  powers  of  the  Apostolate  and  the  Primacy 
are  not  antagonistic,  but  fit  into  and  harmonize  with 
each  other.  In  the  college  of  the  Twelve,  as  before 
inaugurated,  and  sent  forth  into  the  whole  world, 
something  would  have  been  wanting,  had  not  “  the 
appointment  of  a  head  removed  the  chance  of  schism”  :2 
and  Satan  would  have  shaken  the  whole  fabric  had 
there  not  been  one  divinely  set  to  “  confirm  the 
brethren.”  He  who  “  kept  them  ”  once,  when  “  with 
them,”  by  his  personal  presence,  now  kept  them  for 
evermore  by  the  word  of  his  power,  issued  on  the 
shore  of  the  lake  of  Galilee,  but  resounding  through 
every  age,  clear  and  decisive,  amid  the  fall  of  empires 
and  the  change  of  races — “  Simon,  son  of  John,  lovest 

1  Bossuet,  Sermon  sur  VUniti ,. 

2  St.  Jerome. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  89 

thou  me  more  than  these  ?  Feed  my  lambs:  Feed  my 
sheep.” 

And  that  the  universal  and  supreme  authority  over 
the  Church  of  Christ  was  in  these  words  committed 
to  Peter  by  the  Lord,  is  the  belief  of  antiquity.  Thus, 
St  Ambrose,  in  the  West:  “  It  is  not  doubtful  that 
Peter  believed,  and  believed  because  he  loved,  and 
loved  because  he  believed.  Whence,  too,  he  is  grieved 
at  being  asked  a  third  time,  Lovest  thou  me  ?  For  we 
ask  those  of  whom  we  doubt.  The  Lord  does  not 
doubt,  and  he  asks  not  to  learn,  but  to  teach  him  whom, 
on  the  point  of  ascending  into  heaven,  he  was  leaving, 
as  it  were ,  the  successor  and  representative  of  his  love.1 
It  is  because  he  alone  out  of  all  makes  a  profession,  that 
he  is  preferred  to  all .  Lastly,  for  the  third  time,  the 
Lord  asks  him,  no  longer  hast  thou  a  regard  (diligis  me) 
for  me,  but  lovest  (amas)  thou  me:  and  now  he  is 
ordered  to  feed,  not  the  lambs,  as  at  first,  who  need  a 
milk  diet,  nor  the  little  sheep,  as  secondly,  but  the 
more  perfect  sheep,  in  order  that  he  who  was  the 
more  perfect  might  have  the  government .”  2  In  the  East, 
St  Chrysostom:  “  Why,  then,  passing  by  the  rest, 
does  he  converse  with  him  on  these  things  ?  He  was 
the  chosen  of  the  Apostles ,  and  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
disciples ,  and  the  head  of  the  hand.  Therefore,  also 
Paul  once  went  up  to  see  him  rather  than  the  rest.  It 
was,  besides,  to  show  him  that  for  the  future  he  must 
be  bold,  as  his  denial  was  done  away  with,  that  He 
puts  into  his  hands  the  presidency  over  the  brethren. 
And  he  does  not  mention  the  denial,  nor  reproach  him 
with  what  had  passed;  but  he  says,  If  thou  lovest  me, 

1  Amoris  sui  veluti  vicarium.  2  In  Lucam,  lib.  10,  n.  175. 


go  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

rule  the  brethren ,  and  show  now  that  warm  affection 
which  on  all  occasions  thou  didst  exhibit,  and  in  which 
thou  didst  exult,  and  the  life  which  thou  didst  offer  to 
lay  down  for  me,  now  spend  for  my  sheep.”  Again, 
“  Thrice  he  asks  the  question,  and  thrice  lays  on  him 
the  same  command,  showing  at  how  high  a  price  he 
sets  the  charge  of  his  own  sheep”  Again,  “  He  was 
put  in  charge  with  the  direction  of  his  brethren.” 
“  He  made  him  great  promises,  and  put  the  world 
into  his  hands  ”  Thus  John  and  James,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles,  were  committed  to  Peter,  but  never 
Peter  to  them:  and  he  adds,  “  But  if  any  one  asks,  How 
then  did  James  receive  the  throne  of  Jerusalem  ?  I 
would  reply  that  he  elected  Peter  not  to  be  the  teacher 
of  this  throne,  but  of  the  whole  world”  And  in 
another  place,  “  Why  did  he  shed  his  blood  to  purchase 
those  sheep  which  he  committed  to  Peter  and  his  suc¬ 
cessors  ?  With  reason  then  said  Christ,  ‘  Who  is  the 
faithful  and  prudent  servant  whom  his  Lord  had  set 
over  his  own1  house  ?’  ”  Theophylact  repeated,  seven 
hundred  years  later,  the  perpetual  tradition  of  the  East : 
“  He  puts  into  Peter’s  hands  the  headship  over  the 
sheep  of  the  whole  world,  and  to  no  other  but  to  him 
gives  he  this;  first,  because  he  was  distinguished  above 
all,  and  the  mouthpiece  of  the  whole  band;  and 
secondly,  showing  to  him  that  he  must  be  confident, 
as  his  denial  was  put  out  of  account.”  Pope  St  Leo 
declares  that  “  though  there  be  among  the  people  of 
God  many  priests  and  many  shepherds,  yet  Peter  rules 
all  by  immediate  commission,  whom  Christ  also  rules 

1  St  Chrys.  in  Joan.  Horn.  88,  pp.  525-527;  and  De 
Sacerdot.,  lib.  2,  tom.  i,  p.  372. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  91 

by  sovereign  power.”1  St  Basil  assigned  an  adequate 
reason  for  this  nearly  a  century  before.  He  viewed  all 
pastoral  authority  in  the  Church  as  included  in  this 
grant  to  Peter,  declaring  that  the  spiritual  “  ruler  is 
alone  the  one  who  represents  the  person  of  the  Saviour, 
and  offers  up  to  God  the  salvation  of  those  who  obey 
him,  and  this  we  learn  from  Christ  Himself  in  that  he 
appointed  Peter  to  he  the  shepherd  of  his  Church  after 
himself .”2 

But  especially  must  we  quote  St  Cyprian,  because 
to  that  equality  of  the  Apostles  as  such,  before  re¬ 
ferred  to  by  us,  by  considering  which  without  regard 
to  the  proportion  of  faith  some  have  been  led  astray, 
he  adds  the  full  recognition  of  the  Primacy,  and  urges 
its  extreme  importance.  Thus  quoting  the  promise 
and  the  fulfilment,  “  Thou  art  Peter,”  etc.,  and  “  Feed 
my  sheep,”  he  goes  on,  “  Upon  him  being  one  he 
builds  his  Church;  and  though  he  gives  to  all  the 
Apostles  an  equal  power,  and  says,  ‘  As  the  Father 
sent  me,  I  also  send  you,’  etc.,  yet  in  order  to  manifest 
unity  he  has,  by  his  own  authority,  so  placed  the  source 
of  the  same  unity  as  to  begin  from  one.  Certainly  the 
other  Apostles  also  were  what  Peter  was,  endued  with 
an  equal  fellowship  both  of  honour  and  power,  but  a 
beginning  is  made  from  unity,  that  the  Church  may  be 
set  before  us  as  one.”3  That  is,  the  Apostles  were 
equal  as  to  the  powers  bestowed  in  John  xx  23-25,  but 
as  to  those  given  in  Matt,  xvi  18,  19,  Luke  xxii  31-33, 
and  John  xxi  15-18,  “  the  Church  was  built  upon 

1  St  Leo,  Serm.  4. 

2  St  Basil,  Constit.  Monas,  xxii,  tom  ii,  p.  573. 

3  St  Cyprian,  de  Unit.  3. 


92 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Peter  alone,”  and  he  was  made  the  source  and  ever- 
living  spring  of  ecclesiastical  unity. 

Yet  clearly  as  our  Lord  in  this  charge  associates 
Peter  with  himself,  puts  him  over  his  brethren,  the 
other  Apostles,  by  that  one  title  of  “  the  Shepherd,”  in 
which  is  summed  up  all  authority  over  his  Church, 
still  a  touch  of  tenderness  is  added  by  the  Master’s 
hand,  which  brings  out  all  this  more  forcibly,  and  must 
have  told  personally  on  Peter’s  feelings  and  those  of 
his  fellow-disciples,  as  the  highest  and  most  solemn 
consecration  to  his  singular  office.  For  when  the  Lord 
spoke  that  parable,  “  I  am  the  good  shepherd,”  he 
added,  as  the  token  of  the  character,  “  The  good  shep¬ 
herd  giveth  his  life  for  his  sheep.”  And  so  now, 
appointing  Peter  to  take  his  place  over  the  flock,  he 
adds  to  him  this  token  also:  “  Amen,  amen,  I  say  to 
thee,  When  thou  wast  younger  thou  didst  gird  thyself, 
and  didst  walk  where  thou  wouldst,  but  when  thou 
shalt  be  old,  thou  shalt  stretch  forth  thy  hands,  and 
another  shall  gird  thee,  and  lead  thee  whither  thou 
wouldst  not.”  “  When  thou  wast  younger,  thou  didst 
gird  thyself,”  alluding,  perhaps,  to  that  impulse  of 
affection  with  which,  just  before,  as  soon  as  Peter 
heard  from  John  that  it  was  the  Lord  standing  on  the 
shore,  “  He  girt  his  coat  about  him  and  cast  himself 
into  the  sea,”  for  his  love  waited  not  for  the  slowness 
of  the  boat.  Thus  he  taught  Peter  that  the  chiefship 
to  which  he  was  appointing  him,  that  “  care  of  all  the 
churches,  ”  as  it  required  a  different  spirit  to  fulfil 
it  from  that  which  prevailed  among  “  the  kings  of 
the  nations,”  so  it  led  to  a  different  end.  The  last 
crowning  act  of  a  lifelong  self-sacrifice,  which  began 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  93 

by  being  the  servant  of  all,  ran  through  a  thousand  acts 
of  humiliation  and  anxiety,  was  to  the  martyrdom  of 
crucifixion.  And  so  in  his  death,  as  well  as  in  his 
charge  of  visible  head  of  the  Church,  he  was  to  be 
made  like  his  Lord,  and  after  the  manner  of  the  Good 
Shepherd,  whom  he  succeeded,  should  lay  down  his 
life  for  his  sheep.  For  “  this  he  said  signifying  by 
what  death  he  should  glorify  God.  And  when  he  had 
said  this,  he  saith  to  him,  Follow  me,”  with  far  deeper 
meaning  now  than  when  those  words  of  power  were 
first  uttered  to  him  beside  that  lake.  Then  it  was 
“  Follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you  fishers  of  men.” 
Now  it  is,  “  Follow  me,  and  I  will  associate  thee  with 
my  life  and  with  my  death,  with  my  charge  and  with 
its  reward.  This  shall  be  the  proof  of  thy  great  love, 
to  be  obedient  even  to  death,  and  that  the  death  of  the 
cross.”  Such  was  the  anointing  which  the  first 
Primate  of  the  Church  received  to  the  triple  crown. 
“  Follow  thou  me.”  Like  his  divine  Master,  he  was 
during  the  whole  of  his  ministry  to  have  the  cross  set 
before  his  eyes,  and  laid  upon  his  heart  as  the  certain 
end  of  his  course.  And  thus  Peter  “  received  power 
and  sacerdotal  authority  over  all,  from  the  very  God 
for  our  sakes  incarnate”:1  thus  he  followed  in  the 
steps  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  as  he  succeeded  to  his 
office.  And  therefore,  having  accomplished  his  mis¬ 
sion  and  triumphed  on  the  Roman  hill,  from  Rome 
he  speaks  through  the  undying  line  of  his  spiritual 
heirs,  and  feeds  the  flock  of  Christ. 

1  Stephen  of  Dora,  in  the  Lateran  Synod,  a.d.  649. 
Mansi,  x  893. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  CORRESPONDENCE  AND  EQUIVALENCE  OF 
THE  GREAT  TEXTS  CONCERNING  PETER 

Before  we  compare  together  more  exactly  what  was 
said  to  the  Apostles  in  common,  and  what  to  Peter  in 
particular,  it  is  desirable  to  consider  briefly  two  other 
points,  which  will  complete  the  evidence  furnished  by 
the  Gospels. 

i.  If,  then,  the  question1  to  be  decided  by  docu¬ 
ments  is,  whether  several  persons  are  to  be  accounted 
equal  in  rank,  honour,  and  authority,  or  whether  one 
of  them  is  superior  to  the  rest,  it  will  be  an  unexcep¬ 
tionable  rule  to  observe  whether  they  are  spoken  of  in 
the  same  manner.  For  words  are  signs  of  ideas,  and 
set  forth  as  in  a  mirror  the  mind’s  conceptions.  A 
similarity  of  language,  therefore,  will  indicate  a  simi¬ 
larity  of  rank;  a  distinction  of  language,  especially  if 
it  be  repeated  and  constant,  will  show  a  like  distinction 
of  rank.  Let  us  apply  this  rule  to  the  mode  in  which 
the  Evangelists  speak  of  Peter  and  of  the  other  Apostles. 

Now,  to  express  one  of  rank  and  his  attendants,  the 
Evangelists  often  use  the  phrase,  a  person  and  those 
with  him.  Thus  Luke  vi  4,  “  David  and  those  that 
were  with  him  ”  ;  and  Matt,  xii  3  with  Mark  ii  25, 
“  Have  ye  not  read  what  David  did  when  himself  was 
an  hungered  and  those  that  were  with  him  ?”  Of  our 

1  Passaglia,  p.  106. 

94 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  95 

Lord  and  the  Apostles  it  is  said,  Mark  iii  1 1,  “  And  he 
made  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  him”;  and 
xvi  io,  “  She  went  and  told  them  that  had  been  with 
him.”  And  Acts  iv  13,  the  chief  priests  “  knew 
them,”  Peter  and  John,  “  that  they  had  been  with 
Jesus  ”  And  Matthew  xxvi  69,  Peter  is  reproached, 
“  Thou  also  wast  with  Jesus”  Now,  just  so  the 
Evangelists  speak  of  Peter.  Our  Lord  having  on  one 
occasion  left  the  Apostles  for  solitary  prayer,  St  Mark 
writes  i  36,  “  And  Simon  and  they  that  were  with 
him  followed  after  him.”  Again,  the  woman  with  the 
issue  of  blood  having  touched  the  Lord  when  he 
asked,  “  Who  is  it  that  touched  me  ? ”  St  Luke  says, 
viii  45,  “  all  denying,  Peter  and  they  that  were  with  him 
said,”  etc.  And  on  the  occasion  of  the  Transfigura¬ 
tion,  “  Peter  and  they  that  were  with  him”  being  James 
and  John.  Just  as  after  the  Resurrection  Luke  writes, 
Acts  ii  14,  “Peter  standing  up  with  the  eleven”; 
verse  37,  “  They  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  ”;  v  29,  “  Peter  and  the  Apostles  answering 
said.”  And  the  angels  to  the  holy  women,  Mark  xvi  7, 
“  Go  tell  his  disciples  and  Peter.” 

It  is  then  to  be  remarked  that  Peter  is  the  only 
Apostle  who  is  put  in  this  relation  to  the  rest.  Never 
is  it  said  “  James,”  or  “  John  and  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles,”  or,  “  and  those  with  him.”  Peter  is 
named,  and  the  rest  are  added  in  a  mass,  and  this 
happens  in  his  case  continually,  never  in  the  case  of 
any  other  Apostle. 

No  adequate  cause  can  be  alleged  for  this  but  the 
Primacy  and  superior  rank  of  Peter,  which  was  ever 
in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist,  and  is  sometimes  in- 


g6  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

dicated  by  the  prophetic  name,  for  as  often  as  Simon 
is  called  Peter,  he  is  marked  as  the  foundation  of  the 
Church,  according  to  the  Lord’s  prophecy.  And  long 
before  contentions  about  the  prerogatives  of  Peter 
arose,  the  ancient  Fathers  attributed  it  to  his  Primacy 
that  he  was  thus  named  expressly  and  first,  the  others 
in  a  mass,  or  in  the  second  place. 

According,  then,  to  the  rule  above-mentioned,  Peter, 
by  the  mode  in  which  the  Evangelists  speak  of  him, 
is  distinguished  from  the  other  Apostles,  and  his 
position  with  regard  to  the  rest  is  described  in  the  very 
same  phrase  which  is  used  to  express  the  superiority 
of  David  over  his  men,  and  even  of  our  Lord  over  the 
Twelve.  And  for  this  there  seems  no  adequate  cause 
but  that  special  association  of  Peter  with  himself 
indicated  in  the  name,  and  the  promises  accompanying 
it  in  Matt.  xvi. 

2.  Again,  four1  catalogues  of  the  Apostles  exist,2  and 
in  each  of  these  Peter  is  placed  first.  And  in  the  three 
which  occur  in  the  Gospels  (that  of  Luke  in  the  Acts 
being  a  more  brief  repetition  of  his  former  one)  the 
prophetic  name  Peter  is  indicated  as  the  reason  for  his 
being  thus  placed  first.  So  Mark:  “  And  to  Simon 
he  gave  the  name  Peter.  And  James  the  son  of 
Zebedee,  and  John  the  brother  of  James;  and  he  named 
them  Boanerges,  which  is  the  sons  of  thunder:”  for 
which  reason,  that  the  Lord  had  given  them  a  name, 
though  it  was  held  in  common,  and  not,  like  that  of 
Peter,  expressive  of  official  rank,  but  personal  qualities, 
Mark  seems  to  set  these  two  before  Andrew,  whom 

1  Passaglia,  p.  109. 

Matt,  x  2-5 ;  Mark  iii  16-19;  Luke  vi  14-17;  Acts  i  13. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


97 


both  in  Matthew  and  in  Luke  they  follow.  Again, 
Luke  says,  “  He  chose  twelve  of  them,  whom  also 
He  named  Apostles,  Simon  whom  he  surnamed  Peter, 
and  Andrew  his  brother,”  etc.  “  The  first  of  all,  and 
the  chief  of  them,  he  that  was  illiterate  and  uneducated,” 
says  St  Chrysostom;1  and  Origen  long  before  him, 
observing  that  Peter  was  always  named  first  in  the 
number  of  the  Twelve,  asks,  What  should  be  thought 
the  cause  of  this  order  ?  He  replies,  it  was  constantly 
observed  because  Peter  was  “  more  honoured  than  the 
rest,”  thus  intimating  that  he  no  less  excelled  the  rest 
on  account  of  the  gifts  which  he  had  received  from 
heaven,  than  “  Judas  through  his  wretched  disposition 
was  truly  the  last  of  all,  and  worthy  to  be  put  at  the 
end.”2  Much  more  marked  is  Matthew  in  signifying 
the  superior  dignity  of  Peter,  not  only  naming  him  at 
the  head  in  his  catalogue,  but  calling  him  simply  and 
absolutely  “  the  first.”  “  And  the  names  of  the  Twelve 
apostles  are  these,  The  first,  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter, 
and  Andrew  his  brother,  James,”  etc.  Now,  that 
second  and  third  do  not  follow  shows  that  “  first  ”  is 
not  a  numeral  here,  but  designates  rank  and  pre¬ 
eminence.  Thus  in  heathen  authors  this  word  “  first  ” 
by  itself  designates  the  most  excellent  in  its  kind: 
thus  in  the  Septuagint  occur,  “first  friend  of  the  king,” 
“  first  of  the  singers,”  “  the  first  priest  ”3 — i.e.>  the 
chief  priest.  So  our  Lord,  “  whichever  among  you 
will  be  first ;”  “  Bring  forth  the  first  robe ;”  and  St  Paul, 
“sinners,  of  whom  I  am  first”4 — i.e.,  chief.  Thus 

1  St  Chrysostom  in  Matt.,  Horn.  32. 

2  Origen  in  Joan.,  tom.  32,  n.  5,  t.  4,  p.  413. 

3  1  Paral.  xxvii  33 ;  Neh.  xii  45 ;  2  Paral.  xxvi  20. 

4  Matt,  xx  27;  Luke  xv  22;  1  Tim.  i  15. 


7 


98  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

“  the  first  of  the  island,”  Acts  xxviii  7,  means  the  chief 
magistrate;  the  “  first  ”  generally  in  Latin  phraseology, 
the  superior,  or  prince. 

Such,  then,  is  the  rank  which  Matthew  gives  to 
Peter,  when  he  writes,  “  the  first  Simon,  who  is  called 
Peter.” 

It  should  also  be  remarked  that,  whenever  the 
Evangelists  have  occasion  to  mention  some  of  the 
Apostles,  Peter  being  one,  he  is  ever  put  first.  Thus 
Matthew,  “  he  taketh  unto  him  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John  his  brother  ”;  and  Mark,  “  he  admitted  not  any 
man  to  follow  him,  but  Peter,  and  James,  and  John 
the  brother  of  James.”  Again,  “  Peter,  and  James, 
and  John,  and  Andrew  asked  him  apart  ”;  and  “  he 
taketh  Peter,  and  James,  and  John  with  him”;  and 
Luke,  “  he  suffered  not  any  man  to  go  in  with  him, 
but  Peter,  and  James,  and  John,  and  the  father  and 
mother  of  the  maiden  ” ;  and  “  he  sent  Peter  and  John.” 
Thus,  John,  “  There  were  together  Simon  Peter,  and 
Thomas,  who  is  called  Didymus,  and  Nathanael  who 
was  of  Cana  in  Galilee,  and  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee, 
and  two  others  of  his  disciples.”1  This  rule  would 
seem  to  be  invariable,  though  James  and  John  are  not 
always  mentioned  next  after  him. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  to  evade  the  force  of 
these  testimonies,  by  giving  as  a  reason  for  Peter  being 
always  thus  named  first,  that  he  was  the  most  aged  of 
all  the  Apostles,  and  the  first  called.  Even  were  it  so, 
such  reasons  would  seem  most  inadequate,  but  un¬ 
fortunately  they  are  neither  of  them  facts.  For  as  to 

1  Matt,  xvii  1 ;  Mark v 37,  xiii  3,  xiv  33;  Luke  viii  51,  xii  8; 
John  xxi  2. 


st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  99 

age,  antiquity  bears  witness  that  Andrew  was  Peter's 
elder  brother.  And  as  to  their  calling,  St  Augustine 
has  observed,  “  In  what  order  all  the  Twelve  Apostles 
were  called,  does  not  appear  in  the  narrations  of  the 
Evangelists,  since  not  only  not  the  order  of  the  calling, 
but  not  even  the  calling  itself  of  all  is  mentioned,  only 
the  calling  of  Philip,  and  Peter,  and  Andrew,  and  of 
the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  of  Matthew  the  publican, 
termed  also  Levi.  Now,  Peter  was  both  the  first  and 
the  only  one  who  separately  received  a  name  from 
him.”  As  it  may  be  conjectured  from  the  Gospels 
that  Christ  said  to  Philip  first  of  all  “  Follow  me,° 
John  i  44,  he  has  the  best  right  to  be  considered  the  first 
called. 

Now  the  two  classes  of  facts  just  mentioned,  as  to 
the  mode  in  which  the  Evangelists  speak  of  Peter  in 
combination  with  the  other  Apostles,  prove  directly 
and  plainly  his  Primacy,  while  they  do  not  directly 
prove,  save  Matthew's  title  of  First ,  nor  are  they  here 
quoted  to  prove,  the  nature  of  the  Primacy,  which  rests, 
as  we  have  seen,  on  other  and  more  decisive  texts. 

At  length,  then,  we  have  before  us  the  whole  evidence 
of  the  Gospels,  and  having  considered  it,  piece  by 
piece,  may  now  take  a  general  view.  It  is  time  to 
gather  up  the  several  parts  of  this  evidence,  and, 
claiming  for  each  its  due  force,  to  present  the  sum  of 
all  before  the  mind.  For  distinct  and  decisive  as 
certain  texts  appear,  and  are,  even  by  themselves,  yet 
when  they  are  seen  to  fit  into  a  whole  system,  and  per¬ 
fectly  to  harmonize  together,  they  have  much  greater 
power  to  convince  the  mind  which  really  seeks  for 
1  De  Consensu  Evang.,  lib.  ii,  c.  xvii,  n.  39. 


100 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


truth.  But  moral  evidence  generally,  and  especially 
that  which  results  from  a  study  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
is  not  intended  to  move  a  mind  in  a  lower  condition 
than  this — a  mind,  that  is,  which  loves  something  else 
better  than  the  truth. 

Thus,  out  of  the  body  of  his  disciples  we  see  our 
Lord  choosing  Twelve,  and  again,  out  of  those  Twelve, 
distinguishing  One  by  the  most  singular  favours.  This 
distinction  even  begins  before  the  selection  of  the 
Twelve,  and  has  its  root  in  the  very  beginning  of  our 
Lord’s  ministry:  for,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  when 
Andrew  first  led  his  brother  Simon  before  Christ,  that 
he  “  looked  upon  him,”  and  promised  him  the  prophetic 
name  which  revealed  his  Primacy  and  his  perpetual 
relation  to  the  Church  of  God.  The  name  thus  pro¬ 
mised  is  in  due  time  bestowed,  and  solemnly  recorded 
by  the  three  Evangelists,  at  the  appointment  of  the 
Apostles,  as  the  reason  why  he  is  invariably  set  at  their 
head ;  Matthew,  still  more  distinctly  expressing  it  in  his 
Primacy,  “  the  first ,  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter.”  And 
their  whole  mode  of  mentioning  him,  and  exhibiting 
his  relation  to  the  other  Apostles,  shows  that  this 
Primacy  was,  when  they  wrote,  ever  in  their  minds. 
It  comes  out  in  the  most  incidental  way,  as  when  Mark 
writes  “  Simon,  and  they  that  were  with  him,  followed 
after  ”  Christ;  or  Luke,  “  Peter,  and  they  that  were 
with  him,  said  ”;  as  naturally  as  they  write,  “  David, 
and  those  that  were  with  him  ” ;  or  of  our  Lord  himself, 
and  the  Apostles,  “those  that  had  been  with  him.”1 
Again  this  preference  of  Peter  is  shown  by  our  Lord, 
both  at  the  Transfiguration  and  the  Agony:  where, 
1  Mark  i  36;  Luke  viii  45 ;  Matt,  xii  3 ;  Mark  ii  25,  xvi  10. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


IOI 


even  when  the  two  next  favoured  of  the  Apostles  are 
associated  with  him  as  witnesses,  yet  there  is  evidence 
of  Peter’s  superiority  in  the  mode  with  which  the 
Evangelists  mention  him.  Great  as  was  the  dignity 
of  the  two  sons  of  thunder,  they  are  yet  ranged  under 
Peter  by  Luke,  with  that  same  phrase  which  we  have 
just  been  considering.  “  Peter,  and  they  that  were  with 
him,  were  heavy  with  sleep.”  And  our  Lord,  at  the 
Agony,  says  to  Peter,  “  Could  not  you  ” — that  is,  all 
the  three — “  watch  with  me  one  hour  P”1  Again,  how 
incidentally,  yet  markedly,  does  Matthew  show  that 
this  superiority  of  Peter  over  others  was  apparent  even 
to  strangers,  when  he  writes,  that  the  officers  who 
collected  the  tribute  for  the  Temple,  came  to  him ,  and 
said,  “  Does  not  your  Master  ”  (the  Master  of  all  the 
Apostles)  “  pay  the  didrachma  ?”2  Much  more 
significant  is  the  incident  immediately  following,  when 
our  Lord  orders  him  to  go  to  the  sea,  to  cast  a  hook, 
and  to  bring  up  a  fish,  which  shall  have  a  stater  in  his 
mouth,  adding,  “  Take  that,  and  give  it  to  them  for 
me,  and  for  thee  a  token  of  preference  so  strong, 
and  of  association  so  singular,  that  it  set  the  Apostles  on 
the  immediate  inquiry,  who  should  be  the  greater  among 
them:  the  answer  to  which  we  will  revert  presently. 

And  this  designation  of  Peter  to  his  high  and  singular 
office  becomes  even  more  striking,  if  we  contrast  what 
our  Lord  did  and  said  to  him  with  what  he  did  and  said 
to  another  Apostle,  who  in  another  way  is  even  in  some 
respects  preferred  to  Peter  himself.  For/4  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved,”  who  lay  on  his  breast  at  supper,  to 
whom  he  committed  at  the  most  sorrowful  of  all 

1  Luke  ix  32;  Matt,  xxvi  40. 


2  Matt,  xvii  24. 


102 


ST.  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


moments  the  domestic  care  of  the  Virgin  Mother,  has 
in  the  affection  of  our  Lord  his  own  unapproachable 
sphere.  But  as  Peter  does  not  come  into  competition 
with  him  here,  so  neither  in  another  view  he  with  Peter. 
His  distinction  is  private,  and  in  the  nature  of  personal 
affection:  Peter’s  is  public,  and  in  the  nature  of  Church 
government.  To  one  is  committed  the  Mother  of  the 
Lord,  the  living  symbol  of  the  Church,  the  most  blessed 
of  all  creatures,  and  that,  when  her  full  dignity  and 
blessedness  stood  at  length  revealed  in  the  full  God¬ 
head  of  her  Son,  yet  whose  throne  was  intercessory, 
apart  from  rule  on  earth :  to  the  other  is  committed  the 
Church  herself,  her  championship  in  the  time  of  con¬ 
flict,  the  rudder  of  the  vessel  on  the  lake,  till  with  Christ 
it  should  reach  the  shore.  Each  of  these,  so  eminent 
and  unapproachable  in  his  way,  has  that  way  apart; 
and  when  Peter,  on  receiving  his  final  commission, 
turned  about  and  saw  his  best  loved  friend  following, 
and  ventured  to  ask,  “  Lord,  and  what  shall  this  man 
do  ?”  our  Lord  replied  with  something  like  a  reproof, 
“  What  is  that  to  thee  ?  Follow  thou  me.”  These 
distinct  preferences  of  the  two  Apostles  were  indicated 
by  Tertullian,  when  he  wrote,  “  Was  anything  con¬ 
cealed  from  Peter,  who  was  named  the  Rock  on  which 
the  Church  should  be  built,  who  received  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  the  power  to  bind  and  loose 
in  heaven  and  on  earth  ?  Was  anything,  too,  con¬ 
cealed  from  John,  the  most  beloved  of  the  Lord,  who 
lay  upon  his  breast,  to  whom  alone  the  Lord  fore- 
signified  the  traitor  Judas,  whom  he  committed  in  his 
own  place  as  Son  to  Mary  P”1 

1  De  Praesc.,  c.  22. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  103 

But  to  return.  Our  Lord,  after  encompassing  Peter 
during  his  whole  ministry  with  such  tokens  of  pre¬ 
ference,  and  a  preference  specially  belonging  to  his 
office,  and  designating  it,  appears  to  him  first  of  all 
the  Apostles  after  his  resurrection.  And  yet  all  the 
proofs  which  we  have  been  here  summing  up  of  Peter’s 
pre-eminence  are  but  collateral  and  subordinate : 
though  by  themselves  tenfold  more  than  any  other 
can  claim,  yet  Peter’s  authority  does  not  rest  mainly 
on  them.  And  this  likewise  is  true  of  another  class 
of  facts  concerning  Peter,  which  yet  carries  with  it 
much  force,  and  when  once  remarked,  never  leaves  the 
thoughtful  mind.  It  is  his  great  predominance  in  the 
sacred  history  over  the  rest  of  the  Twelve.  A  single 
incident  or  expression  distinguishing  him  is  perhaps 
all  that  falls  to  the  lot  of  another  Apostle,  as  when 
“  Philip  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  show  us  the  Father  and 
it  sufficeth  us  and  the  Lord  replies,  “  Have  I  been 
so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known 
me,  Philip  ?”  Or  as  Thomas,  at  a  moment  of  danger, 
“  said  to  his  fellow-disciples,  Let  us  also  go  that  we 
may  die  with  him.”1  But  Peter’s  name  is  wrought  into 
the  whole  tissue  of  the  Gospel  history ;  he  is  perpetually 
approaching  the  Lord  with  questions:  “  Lord,  how  oft 
shall  my  brother  sin  against  me,  and  I  forgive  him  ? 
until  seven  times  ?”  The  rest  suffer  the  Lord  in 
silence  to  wash  their  feet,  but  Peter  is  overcome  at  the 
sight.  “  Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet  ?  Thou  shalt 
never  wash  my  feet;”  “  Lord,  not  my  feet  only,  but 
also  my  hands  and  my  head.”2  Thus  in  the  whole 
New  Testament,  John,  who  is  yet  mentioned  oftener 

1  John  xiv  8,  xi  16.  2  Matt,  xviii  21 ;  John  xiii  6. 


104  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


than  the  rest,  occurs  only  thirty-eight  times ;  but  in  the 
Gospels  alone,  omitting  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles, 
Peter  is  mentioned  twenty-three  times  by  Matthew, 
eighteen  by  Mark,  twenty  by  Luke,  and  thirty  by  John.1 
More  especially  it  is  the  custom  of  the  Evangelists, 
when  they  record  anything  which  touches  all  the 
Apostles,  almost  invariably  to  exhibit  Peter  as  singly 
speaking  for  all,  and  representing  all.  Thus  when 
Christ  asked  them  all  equally,  “  But  whom  say  ye  that 
I  am  ?  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said.”  He  told 
them  all  equally  “  That  a  rich  man  shall  hardly  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,”2  whereupon  “Peter 
answering  said  to  him,  Behold,  we  have  left  all  things, 
and  followed  thee:  what  therefore  shall  we  have  ?” 
And  when“  Jesus  said  to  the  Twelve,  Will  you  also  go 
away  ?”3  at  once  we  hear  “  Simon  Peter  answered  and 
said,  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the 
words  of  eternal  life.”  And  a  very  remarkable  occasion 
occurs  where  our  Lord  had  been  telling  to  his  disciples 
the  parable  of  the  watchful  servant,  upon  which  Peter 
said  to  him,  “  Lord,  dost  thou  speak  this  parable  to  us, 
or  likewise  to  all  ?”4  And  the  reply  seems  by  anti¬ 
cipation  to  express  the  very  office  which  Peter  was  to 
hold.  “  Who,  then,  is  the  faithful  and  wise  steward, 
whom  his  lord  setteth  over  his  family,  to  give  them 
their  measure  of  wheat  in  due  season  ?”  Now  it  looks 
not  like  an  equal,  but  a  superior,  to  anticipate  the  rest, 
to  represent  them,  to  speak  and  act  for  them.  St 
Chrysostom  drew  the  conclusion  long  ago.  “  What, 
then,  says  Peter,  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Apostles  ? 

1  Passaglia,  p.  134.  2  Matt.  xix.  23. 

3  John  vi  67.  4  Luke  xii  41. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  105 

Everywhere  impetuous  as  he  is,  the  leader  of  the  band 
of  the  Apostles,  when  a  question  is  asked  of  all,  he 
replies.”1  No  other  cause  can  be  assigned  for  the  care 
of  the  Evangelists  in  setting  before  us  so  continually 
his  words  and  acts,  in  bringing  him  out,  as  the  second 
object,  after  Christ.  But  though  his  future  place  in 
the  Church  is  a  reason  for  this,  and  this,  again,  a  token 
of  that  singular  pre-eminence,  its  decisive  proof  rests 
on  declarations  from  our  Lord’s  own  mouth,  expressly 
circumscribed  to  him,  of  singular  lucidity,  and  of  force 
which  nothing  can  evade.  These  declarations  set 
forth,  under  different  yet  coincident  images,  a  power 
supreme  and  without  equal,  and  of  its  own  nature 
belonging  to  one  alone.  The  proofs  which  we  have 
hitherto  mentioned  take  away  all  abruptness  from  these 
declarations,  and  show  that  they  embody  a  great  design 
which  runs  all  through  the  Gospel ;  but  the  office  itself 
rests  upon  these,  and  by  these  is  most  clearly  and 
absolutely  defined. 

Thus,  when  our  Lord,  in  answer  to  a  great  con¬ 
fession  of  his  Apostle,  “  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God,”  replies,  “  And  I  too  say  unto  thee, 
Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church  ”:  every  one  must  feel  how  it  adds  to  the 
cogency  of  the  reply,  that  the  name,  which  he  is  ex¬ 
plaining,  was  not  the  person’s  natural  name,  but  first 
promised,  and  then  given,  by  that  same  Lord,  who  now 
attaches  other  promises  and  prophecies  to  it.  This 
fact  serves,  among  others,  to  fix  the  whole  which  follows 
to  Peter  individually,  and  to  introduce  what  follows 
as  part  of  a  design  which  before  had  been  intimated. 

1  In  Matt.  Horn.  54. 


106  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

What  follows  no  more  belongs  to  the  other  Apostles 
than  the  name  Peter  belongs  to  them :  and  a  name,  on 
the  other  hand,  so  promised,  and  so  given,  naturally 
looks,  as  it  were,  to  such  a  result.  To  say  solemnly 
of  a  man,  when  first  seen,  “  Thou  art  called  Simon, 
but  thou  shalt  be  called  the  Rock,”  and  to  make  nothing 
of  him  when  so  called,  would  be,  if  ascribed  to  any  one, 
a  dull  and  pointless  thing ;  but  what  shall  we  say  when 
the  speaker  is  God  ?  It  is  a  new  thing  for  God  the 
Word  to  speak  with  little  meaning,  or  to  speak  and  not 
to  do :  and  so  now  he  does  what  he  had  long  designed. 
And  what  is  it  that  he  does  ?  He  sets  up  a  governor 
who  is  never  to  be  put  down.  He  inaugurates  a 
Church  against  which  hell  shall  rage  in  vain:  he 
establishes  a  government  at  which  the  nations  shall 
rage,  the  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves,  and  the 
rulers  take  counsel  together,  for  ever,  but  to  their  own 
confusion.  He  does  what  he  alone  could  do,  and  so 
the  answer  is  worthy  of  the  confession,  “  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.” 

“  Blessed1  art  thou,  Simon  Bar-Jona,  for  flesh  and 
blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father 
who  is  in  heaven.  And  I  too  say  unto  thee ,  in  return 
for  what  thou  hast  said  to  me,  and  to  show,  like  my 
Father,  my  good  will  towards  thee,  and  what  I  say, 
as  the  Almighty  Word  of  the  Father,  by  my  power  I 
fulfil,  that  thou  art  Peter,  the  Rock,  and  so  partaker  with 
me  of  that  honour  whereby  I  am  the  chief  Rock  and 
Foundation;  and  upon  this  Rock ,  which  I  have  called 
thee,  I  will  build  my  Church.  Therefore,  with  me  for 
its  architect,  it  shall  rest  on  thee,  to  thee  adhere,  and 

1  Passaglia,  p.  510. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  107 

from  thee  derive  its  conspicuous  unity:  and  the  gates 
of  hell ,  even  all  the  powers  of  the  enemy,  shall  not 
prevail  against  it,  nor  take  that  which,  by  my  Godhead, 
is  established  upon  thee.  And  to  thee ,  whom,  as 
Supreme  Architect,  I  have  marked  out  for  the  Rock 
and  Foundation  of  my  Church,  as  king  and  lord  I 
will  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  the 
supreme  authority  over  my  Church,  and  will  make 
thee  sharer  with  me  in  that  dignity,  by  which  I  hold 
the  keys  of  heaven  and  of  earth.  And  whatsoever ,  in 
virtue  of  that  authority  and  as  associated  in  my  dignity, 
thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth ,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and 
there  shall  be  no  matter  relating  to  my  Church,  and  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  but  shall  be  subject  to  thy  legisla¬ 
tive  and  judicial  power,  which  shall  reach  the  heaven 
itself.  It  is  a  power  at  once  human  and  divine; 
human,  as  entrusted  to  a  man,  and  administered  by 
a  man;  divine,  as  a  participation  of  that  right  by  which 
I  am,  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  supreme  lawgiver  and 
judge ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven” 

Thus  it  is  that  the  most  famous  Fathers  and  Bishops, 
the  most  distinguished  Councils,  the  most  various 
nations,  have  understood  our  Lord’s  words,  and  this  is 
their  meaning,  according  to  the  fixed  laws  of  grammar, 
of  rhetoric,  of  philosophy,  and  of  logic,  as  well  as  by 
the  testimony  of  history,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  theology.  Let  us  mention  certain  con¬ 
sequences  which  follow  from  them. 

These  words1  of  Christ  are,  in  the  most  marked 
manner,  addressed  to  Peter  only  among  the  Apostles, 

1  Passaglia,  p.  518. 


108  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

and  are,  therefore,  with  their  meaning,  peculiar  to  him. 
And  they  designate  pre-eminence  in  the  government 
of  the  Church.  They  have,  therefore,  the  two  quali¬ 
ties  which  render  them  a  suitable  testimony  to  establish 
his  Primacy  among  the  Apostles. 

Now,  if  persons  differ  in  rank  and  pre-eminence, 
they  must  be  considered  not  equals,  but  absolutely 
unequal.  And  such  pre-eminence  Peter  had,  deriving 
from  Christ,  the  Founder,  a  superior  rank  in  the 
Church’s  ministry.  Therefore,  the  college  of  the 
Apostles  must  be  termed  absolutely  unequal,  and  all 
the  Apostles,  compared  with  Peter,  absolutely  unequal. 

But  as  inequality  may  be  manifold,  as  of  age, 
calling,  honour,  order,  jurisdiction,  and  power,  its 
nature  and  its  degree  must  be  sought  in  that  property 
which  belongs  to  one  over  the  rest.  So  that  we  must 
determine,  by  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  from 
those  gifts  which  were  promised  to  Peter  alone,  the 
nature  and  the  degree  of  that  inequality  which  sub¬ 
sisted  between  him  and  the  other  Apostles. 

The  gifts  promised  to  Peter  alone  are  contained 
in  these  words  of  Christ,  recorded  by  Matthew:  and 
therefore,  from  their  nature  and  inherent  qualities, 
we  must  judge  of  the  sort  and  the  extent  of  inequality 
put  by  Christ  between  Peter  and  the  rest. 

These  are  summed  up  in  the  four  following:  I.  That 
Peter  is  the  Rock,  on  which  the  Church  was  to  be 
built  by  Christ,  the  Chief  Architect.  II.  That  the 
impregnable  strength  which  the  Church  was  to  have 
against  the  gates  of  hell  depended  on  its  union  with 
Peter,  as  the  divinely  laid  foundation.  III.  That  by 
Christ,  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,  Peter 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  109 

is  marked  out  as  next  to  him,  and  after  him,  the  bearer 
of  the  keys  in  the  Church’s  heavenly  kingdom. 
IV.  And  that,  accordingly,  universal  power  of  binding 
and  loosing  is  promised  to  him,  leaving  him  responsible 
to  Christ  alone,  the  supreme  Lawgiver  and  Judge. 
Therefore  the  nature  of  the  prerogatives  expressed  in 
these  four  terms  must  be  our  standard  both  of  the 
character  and  degree  of  inequality  between  the  Apostles 
and  Peter,  and  of  the  power  of  the  Primacy  promised 
to  Peter. 

But  these  terms  mark  authority,  and  plainly  express 
jurisdiction  and  power;  the  inequality,  therefore,  is 
one  relating  to  jurisdiction  and  power;  and  Peter’s 
pre-eminence  likewise  such. 

That  these  terms,  which  contain  Peter’s  preroga¬ 
tives,  really  do  express  jurisdiction  and  authority,  may 
be  thus  very  briefly  shown.  The  first,  “  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,” 
is  drawn  from  architecture,  exhibiting  between  Peter 
and  the  Church,  which  includes  also  the  Apostles,  the 
relation  which  exists  between  the  foundation  and  the 
superstructure.  This  is  one  of  dependence,  by  which 
accordingly  the  Apostles  must  maintain  an  indivisible 
union  with  Peter:  which  relation  of  dependence,  again, 
cannot  be  understood  without  the  notion  of  superior 
jurisdiction  in  Peter,  for  these  are  correlative.  The 
second  term  corroborates  this;  for  it  is  a  plain  duty, 
and  undoubted  moral  obligation,  to  be  united  to  him 
whom  if  severed  from,  the  words  of  Christ  do  not 
entitle  you  to  expect  stability  or  victory  over  the  gates 
of  hell.  Now,  “  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it  ”  most  plainly  express  that  perseverance  and 


no 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


victory  are  promised  to  no  one,  by  Christ,  who  does  not 
remain  joined  with  Peter.  So  much  for  the  duty  which 
binds  all  Christians,  and  the  Apostles  among  them, 
to  avoid  separation  from  Peter  as  their  destruction. 
But  such  duty  involves  the  faculty  and  authority  on 
Peters  part  of  enjoining  on  all  without  exception  the 
maintenance  of  unity,  and  of  keeping  from  the  whole 
body  the  sin  of  schism,  which,  again,  expresses  his 
superior  jurisdiction.  Yet  plainer  and  more  striking 
is  the  third;  for  in  the  words,  “  And  I  will  give  to  thee 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,’ ’  it  is  foretold  that 
Peter,  in  regard  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  there¬ 
fore  to  all  Christians,  whether  teachers  or  taught, 
subjects  or  prelates,  shall  discharge  the  office  of  the 
bearer  of  the  keys;  with  which  jurisdiction  and 
authority  are  indivisibly  united.  Now  in  the  fourth> 
there  is  no  matter  relating  to  the  heavenly  kingdom, 
which  is  not  subjected  by  this  promise  to  Peter’s 
authority.  “  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind,”  “  what¬ 
soever  thou  shalt  loose  but  this  is  in  its  own  kind 
without  limit,  a  full  legislative  and  judicial  power. 
Thus  these  four  terms  exactly  agree  with  each  other, 
and  express,  severally  and  collectively,  prerogatives 
by  which  Peter  is  admitted  to  a  singular  and  close 
association  with  Christ;  and  therefore  is  pre-eminent 
among  the  Apostles  by  his  Primacy,  and  his  superior 
authority  over  the  whole  Church. 

They  also  show,  with  no  less  clearness,  that  Christ 
in  bestowing  these  prerogatives  and  Primacy  on  Peter, 
designed  to  produce  the  visible  unity  of  his  kingdom 
and  Church;  and  this  in  two  ways,  the  first  typically 
prefiguring  the  Church’s  own  unity  in  Peter,  the  single 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


III 


Foundation,  Bearer  of  the  keys,  and  supreme  Legislator 
and  Judge;  the  second  efficiently ,  as  by  a  principle  and 
cause,  forming ,  holding  together ,  and  protecting ,  visible 
unity  in  that  same  Peter,  as  he  discharged  these  func¬ 
tions.  For  just  as  the  building  is  based  on  the  founda¬ 
tion,  and  by  virtue  of  it  all  the  parts  are  held  together, 
so  a  kingdom’s  unity  and  harmonious  administration 
are  first  moulded  out  and  then  preserved ,  in  the  unity 
of  its  supreme  authority. 

And  this  Primacy  may  be  regarded  from  three 
different  points  of  view;  as  it  is  in  itself ,  and  as  it 
regards  its  efficient  and  its  final  cause.  As  to  the  first, 
it  consists  in  superior  jurisdiction  and  authority;  as 
to  the  second,  it  springs  from  Christ  himself,  who 
said  to  Peter  alone,  “  And  I  too  say  unto  thee,”  etc.; 
as  to  the  third,  it  prefigures ,  forms ,  and  protects  the 
Church’s  visible  unity. 

But  to  prefigure,  to  form,  and  to  protect  the  Church’s 
unity  being  distinct  functions,  care  must  be  taken 
not  to  confuse  them,  the  former  concerning  the 
Primacy  as  a  type,  the  two  latter  as  the  origin  and 
efficient  cause;  and  also  not  to  concede  the  former 
while  the  latter  are  denied,  which  latter  make  up  the 
Primacy  as  jurisdictional  and  the  instrument  effecting 
unity.  Now,  Peter  is  both  the  type  of  unity,  its  origin, 
and  its  efficient  cause. 

A  long  line1  of  Fathers,  from  the  most  ancient  down¬ 
wards,  regards  Peter  as  at  once  the  type,  and  the  origin, 
and  efficient  cause  of  unity;  setting  it  forth  as  a  prero- 

1  These  testimonies  have  been  set  forth  at  length  in 
another  work,  The  See  of  St  Peter ,  the  Rock  of  the  Church , 
etc.,  pp.  97-118. 


1 12 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


gative  of  his  headship  that  no  one,  whether  Apostle, 
or  Prophet,  or  Evangelist,  or  Doctor,  or  Teacher,  might 
separate  from  him  without  the  crime  of  schism.  In 
this  consists  his  Primacy,  and  in  this  the  famous  phrase 
of  St  Cyprian  finds  its  solution,  that  “  the  Episcopate 
is  one,  of  which  a  part  is  held  by  each  without  division 
of  the  whole.” 

And,  what  is  like  to  the  preceding,  they  hold  that 
Peter  is  the  continuous  source  of  all  power  in  the  Church, 
and  that  while  its  plenitude  dwells  in  his  person,  a 
portion  of  it  is  derived  to  the  various  prelates  under 
him.  No  one  has  set  this  forth  more  fully  than  St  Leo, 
in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  as  where  he  says, 
that  “  if  Christ  willed  that  other  rulers  should  enjoy 
aught  together  with  him  (that  is,  Peter),  yet  never  did 
he  gi ve,save  through  him,  what  he  denied  not  to  others.”1 

All  these  consequences  seem  to  result  from  the 
words  of  our  Lord,  here  solemnly  addressed  to  Peter. 

But,  recurring  to  our  general  view,  we  find  our  Lord 
three  several2  times  appealed  to  by  the  Apostles  to 
declare  who  should  be  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  While  on  neither  of  these  occasions  does  he 
declare  to  them  that  there  should  be  no  “  greater  one  ” 
among  them,  though  such  a  declaration  would  have 
terminated  their  rivalry,  on  the  last  and  most  urgent, 
at  the  very  eve  of  his  departure  from  them,  he  sets 
forth  in  vivid  words  what  ought  to  be  the  character 
and  deportment  of  the  one  so  to  be  placed  over  them. 
Then  turning  his  conversation  from  them  in  a  body  to 
Peter  in  particular,  he  charges  him,  at  a  future  time, 
when  he  shall  obtain  for  him  the  gift  of  a  faith  that 

1  Serm.  4.  2  Matt,  xviii  1,  xx  20;  Luke  xxii,  24. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  1 13 

could  not  fail,  to  “  confirm  his  brethren.”  Having 
before  dwelt  on  the  full  meaning  of  these  words,  we 
need  only  remark  how  marvellously  they  coincide  in 
force  with  the  prophecy  which  we  have  just  been  con¬ 
sidering,  while  they  differ  from  it  in  expression.  They 
convey  as  absolutely  a  supreme  authority  as  the  former ; 
an  authority  independent  of  others,  and  exclusive  of 
participation;  and  one  which  is  given  for  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  faith  and  of  visible  unity  in  that  faith. 
Nor  can  we  imagine  a  more  fitting  termination  to  the 
whole  of  our  Lord’s  dealing  with  his  disciples  before 
his  Passion,  than  that,  when  about  to  be  taken  from 
them,  he  should  designate,  in  words  so  full  of  affection 
and  provident  care,  one  who  was  presently  to  take  his 
own  place  among  them.  “  Simon,  Simon,  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not,  and  thou  in  thy 
turn  one  day  confirm  thy  brethren.” 

Now,  our  Lord’s  preference  of  Peter,  as  to  rank 
and  dignity  in  the  Church,  was  during  his  lifetime 
consistent  and  uniform.  He  made  to  him,  twice, 
promises  so  large  as  to  include  and  go  far  beyond  all 
that  he  said  to  the  Apostles  in  common.  He  took  out, 
as  it  were,  of  what  he  had  first  promised  to  Peter  a 
portion  which  he  afterwards  promised  as  their  common 
inheritance  to  the  rest.  His  dealing  with  Peter  and  the 
Apostles  after  his  resurrection  is  the  exact  counter¬ 
part  to  this.  The  fulfilment  is  equivalent  to  the 
promise.  In  the  fourfold  prophecy  to  Peter,  in 
Matt,  xvi,  the  last  member  is,  “  And  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  bind  on  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven; 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be 
loosed  also  in  heaven.”  That  this  is  a  grant  of  full 

8 


1 14  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

legislative  and  judicial  power,  given  to  one,  we  have 
seen.  Now  on  a  later  occasion  it  is  repeated  to  the 
Twelve  together,  Matt,  xviii  18.  But  the  other  three 
members  of  the  prophecy  made  to  Peter  are  never  repeated 
to  the  Twelve.  In  the  fulfilment  the  same  distinction 
takes  place.  To  the  Twelve  in  common  our  Lord 
communicates  the  power  contained  in  the  fourth 
member  of  his  original  promise,  saying,  John  xx  21, 
“  As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.  Re¬ 
ceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost:  whose  sins  ye  shall  forgive, 
they  are  forgiven  them:  and  whose  sins  ye  shall  retain, 
they  are  retained :”  to  which  the  other  forms  contained 
in  Matt,  xxviii  18,  Mark  xvi  15,  Luke  xxiv  49,  Acts  i 
4,  8,  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  of 
waiting  for  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  wherewith 
they  should  be  endued,  of  teaching  men  to  observe 
all  things  which  he  had  commanded,  are  equivalent, 
though  less  definite.  But  nowhere  are  the  powers  con¬ 
tained  in  the  first  three  members  of  the  prophecy  to  Peter 
communicated  to  the  Twelve.  As  the  promises  were 
made  to  Peter  alone  originally,  so  to  Peter  alone  are 
they,  as  we  shall  see,  fulfilled.  Indeed,  it  could  not 
be  otherwise,  for  the  promises  to  be  the  rock  of  the 
Church,  by  coherence  with  which  the  Church  should 
be  impregnable,  and  the  bearer  of  the  keys,  are  in  their 
own  nature  confined  to  one,  and  exclusive  of  partici¬ 
pants  ;  and  once  made  by  the  very  truth  himself  to  one 
man,  they  ranged  under  his  power  all  his  brethren: 
“  For  the  promises  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  his  gifts, 
are  without  repentance;  and  what  is  once  given  inde¬ 
finitely  and  universally  is  irrevocable.”1  Besides  that, 

1  Bossuet,  Sermon  sur  VUnitd. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  OFFICE  1 15 

another  indisputable  principle  must  be  taken  into 
account — viz.,  “  that  power  given  to  several  carries  its 
restriction  in  its  division  ”:  just  as  if  a  king  before  his 
death  bequeaths  the  whole  administration  of  his  sove¬ 
reignty  to  a  board  of  twelve  councillors,  though  the 
sum  of  authority  so  conveyed  be  sovereign,  yet  the 
share  of  each  individual  in  the  college  will  be  restricted 
by  the  equal  right  of  his  colleagues.  Whereas  “  power 
given  to  one  alone,  and  over  all,  and  without  exception, 
carries  with  it  plenitude,  and,  not  having  to  be  divided 
with  any  other,  it  has  no  bounds  save  those  which  its 
terms  convey.”  Such  was  the  power  originally 
promised  to  Peter;  and  such,  no  less,  that  which  was 
ultimately  conveyed.  He  stands  apart  and  alone  no 
less  in  the  fulfilment  than  in  the  promise.  And  under 
another  image,  but  one  equally  expressive  with  the 
first,  the  Lord  conveys  an  authority  as  absolute  and 
as  exclusive.  The  “  bounds  which  its  terms  convey  ” 
are  the  whole  fold  of  Christ:  “  the  sheep  ”  no  less  then 
“  the  lambs  ”:  to  “  govern  ”  no  less  than  “  to  feed.”1 
The  great  Architect  of  the  heavenly  city  said  to  Peter, 
“  Thou  art  the  Rock  and  “  the  King  of  kings,”  who 
“  hath  the  key  of  David,”  and  “  on  whose  shoulder  is 
the  government,”  “  To  thee  will  I  give  the  keys  of  the 

1  Tloi/juxiveiv,  gubernare ,  to  govern,  the  particular  word 
which  our  Lord  employs  to  convey  his  powers  to  Peter,  is 
also  the  particular  word  which  gives  such  offence  to  temporal 
governments,  when  acted  on  by  Peter:  pbcnceLv,  pascere ,  to 
feed,  they  find  more  endurable,  and  probably  they  would 
all  be  content,  from  the  heathen  Roman  emperors  to  the 
present  day,  to  allow  the  Church  to  feed,  so  long  as  they  are 
allowed  to  govern  the  faithful.  The  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  Church  is,  that  our  Lord  gave  both  to  Peter. 


Il6  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

kingdom  of  heaven.”  He  “  who  upholdeth  all  things 
by  the  word  of  his  power,”  and  “  in  whom  all  things 
consist,”  said  to  Peter,  “  Confirm  thy  brethren.”  To 
the  same  Peter,  the  same  “Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep” 
said,  “  Feed  my  lambs,  be  shepherd  over  my  sheep,” 
thus  committing  to  him  the  chief  Apostles  themselves 
who  heard  this  charge,  and  causing  there  to  be  for 
ever  “  one  fold  and  one  shepherd,”  on  earth  as  in 
heaven. 

It  remains  briefly  to  consider  these  three  palmary 
texts  in  their  reciprocal  relations  to  each  other,  by 
which  the  fullest  light  is  thrown  upon  the  Scriptural 
prerogatives  of  St  Peter. 

1.  First,  then,  all  these  texts  are  in  the  most  marked 
manner  circumscribed  to  Peter  alone.  In  all  he  is 
addressed  by  name ;  in  all  he  is  distinguished  by  other 
circumstances  from  his  brethren  at  the  time  present 
with  him ;  in  all  a  special  condition  is  attached  belong¬ 
ing  to  him.  In  the  first,  it  is  Superior  faith — in  the 
second,  faith,  which,  by  a  particular  gift,  the  fruit  of 
Christ’s  own  prayer,  should  never  fail — in  the  third, 
superior  love.  So  that,  without  an  utter  disregard 
of  the  meaning  of  words,  and  the  force  of  the  context, 
and  every  law  of  grammar  and  philology,  no  one  of 
these  texts  can  be  extended  from  its  application  to 
Peter  alone,  and  made  common  to  the  other  Apostles. 

2.  Secondly,  the  note  of  priority  in  time  is  secured 
to  Peter  by  the  first  text,  to  which  the  other  two 
correspond.  Even  if  the  promise  in  Matt,  xviii  18, 
made  to  all  the  Apostles,  were  of  equal  latitude  with 
that  previously  made  to  Peter,  which  it  is  so  very  far 
from  being  that  it  contains  one  point  only  out  of  four, 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  1 17 

yet,  the  fact  that  they  had  been  already  ranged  by  the 
former  under  him,  and  that  he  had  been  promised 
singly  what  they  afterwards  were  promised  in  common , 
would  make  a  vast  difference  between  them;  indeed, 
the  difference  of  the  Primacy.  But,  as  it  is,  the  very 
first  mention  of  the  Church  is  connected  with  a  promise 
made  to  Peter  of  the  highest  authority  in  that  Church, 
and  a  perpetual  relationship,  entering  into  its  inmost 
constitutions  between  it  and  his  person.  Before  the 
Church  is  formed,  it  is  foretold  that  Peter  shall  rule 
her;  before  she  is  set  up  against  the  gates  of  hell,  that, 
by  virtue  of  her  coherence  with  him,  she  should  prevail 
over  them.  And  the  germ  of  her  Episcopate,  on 
which  she  is  to  grow,  is  sown  in  his  person,  just  as, 
in  the  last  act  of  our  Lord,  that  Episcopate  is  delivered 
over  to  him,  universal  and  complete. 

3.  Thirdly,  these  three  texts  are  exactly  equivalent 
to  each  other;  they  each  involve  and  express  the  other. 
They  could  not  have  been  said  of  different  persons 
without  contradiction  and  confusion.  He  who  has 
one  of  them  must  have  the  rest.  There  is  variation  of 
image,  but  identity  of  meaning.  Thus,  the  relation 
between  Peter  and  the  Church  is  in  the  first,  that  of 
Foundation  and  Superstructure;  of  the  heaven-built 
city,  and  of  him  who  holds  its  keys:  in  the  second, 
it  is  that  of  the  Architect,  who,  by  skill  and  authority 
won  for  him,  and  given  to  him,  by  the  Supreme 
Builder,  the  Word  and  Wisdom  of  God,  maintains 
every  living  stone  of  the  structure  in  its  due  place;  in 
the  third,  it  is  that  of  the  supreme  and  universal  pastor 
and  his  whole  flock.  In  all  of  these  there  is  the  habit 
of  dependence  between  the  superior  and  that  over 


Il8  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

which  he  is  set :  in  all  the  need  of  close  coherence  with 
him.  Observe  in  particular  the  identity  of  the  second 
and  third.  The  special  office  of  the  Shepherd  of 
souls1  is  to  lead  his  flock  into  suitable  pastures — that 
is,  duly  to  instruct  them  in  the  Divine  Word  and  Will. 
The  pastoral  office  is  identical  with  that  of  teaching: 
“  He  gave  some  Apostles,  some  Prophets,  some 
Evangelists,  some  Pastors  and  Teachers  ” ;  the  former 
are  distinguished,  the  last  united  together.  Here  the 
Apostle  observes,  that  the  whole  ministry,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  is  organized  “  to  edify  the  body 
of  Christ  into  the  unity  of  faith/’  and  to  preserve  men 
from  being  “  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine.” 
But  if  this  was  the  design  of  Christ  as  to  the  whole 
ministry,  and  as  to  each  individual  teacher,  most  of 
all  was  it  in  instituting  one  supreme  and  universal 
Pastor.  In  him  most  of  all  would  be  seen  the  perfect 
fitting  in  together 2  of  each  individual  member ;  he  was 
set  up  especially  for  the  compacting  of  each  spiritual 
joint,  the  harmony  and  cohesion  of  the  whole.  Here, 
then,  the  office  of  the  universal  Pastor  or  Teacher 
is  precisely  equivalent  to  him  who,  by  another  image, 
confirms ,  strengthens,  consolidates  his  brethren.  Thus, 
in  the  second  text,  Christ  foretold  the  third.  But  the 
more  we  contemplate  all  the  three  in  their  mutual 
relations,  the  more  a  certain  thought  suggests  itself 
to  the  mind.  There  is  a  special  doctrine  concerning 
the  most  Holy  Trinity,  the  most  distinctive  of  that 
great  mystery,  which  expresses  the  reciprocal  in¬ 
dwelling  of  the  Three  Persons.  Now,  something 

1  Passaglia,  p.  591. 

2  '0  KarapTurnos  tQu  ayiuv,  Eph.  iv  12. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  1 19 

analogous  may  be  said  of  the  way  in  which  these  three 
texts  impermeate  and  include  each  other,  of  their  exact 
equivalence,  and  distinct,  but  inseparable  force:  of 
whom  one  is  said,  of  the  same  must  all. 

4.  Fourthly,  they  all  indicate  a  sovereign  authority, 
independent  itself,  on  which  all  others  depend;  sym¬ 
bolizing  power  from  above,  whilst  claiming  obedience 
from  below ;  immutable  in  itself,  by  which  all  the  rest 
are  made  proof  against  change.  It  is  not,  indeed,  to 
the  sheep  that  the  shepherd  is  responsible,  but  to  their 
owner.  It  has  been  said  throughout  that  the  one 
special  mark  of  Peter’s  distinction  was  a  peculiar 
association  with  Christ.  It  is  not  therefore  by  any 
infringement  of  equal  rights  that  this  authority  is  set 
up,  but  as  the  representative,  the  vicegerent,  of  him 
in  whom  all  power  dwells.  He  bore  this  authority  in 
his  own  body,  and  committed  to  another  what  was 
first  his  own,  both  by  creation  and  by  purchase — 
“  Feed  my  sheep.”  In  all  these  texts  the  immediate 
transference  of  authority  from  the  person  of  the  God- 
man  is  most  striking ;  in  Peter  he  inaugurates  his  great 
theandric  dispensation,  and  forms  the  body  which  he 
was  to  leave  on  earth.  Thus  these  texts  most  clearly 
express  that  important  doctrine  of  antiquity,  the  key¬ 
stone  of  the  Church’s  liberty  from  the  world,  which 
is  the  reason  why  the  world  so  hates  it:  “  The  first  see 
is  judged  by  no  man.”  So  entirely  have  political  ideas 
and  jealousies  infected  our  mode  of  judging  of  spiritual 
things — -to  such  a  degree  is  our  peculiar  civil  liberty 
made  the  standard  of  Church  government — that  it  is 
necessary  to  insist  again  and  again  on  what  to  Christians 
ought  to  be  a  first  principle — viz.,  that  “  all  power  and 


120 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


jurisdiction  in  the  Church  ought  to  rest  not  upon 
natural  and  human  authority,  but  on  the  divine 
authority  of  Christ.  This  is  the  reason  why  we  may 
pronounce  no  otherwise  concerning  such  jurisdiction, 
than  we  know  has  been  handed  down  from  Christ,  its 
proper  Author  and  Founder.  Now,  it  is  certain  that 
at  the  same  moment  at  which  Christ  instituted  the 
community  called  the  Church,  such  a  power  was  intro¬ 
duced,  and  entrusted  as  well  to  Peter  singly  as  the 
head,  as  to  the  Apostles  under  him.  Nay,  that  power 
was  fixed  and  constituted,  and  its  Ministers  and  Bishops 
marked  out,  before  the  Church — that  is,  the  whole 
body  and  commonwealth,  had  grown  into  coherence. 
And  so  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  did  not  first  dwell 
in  the  community  itself,  and  was  then  translated  by 
a  sort  of  popular  suffrage  and  consent  to  its  magistrates ; 
but  from  the  very  first  origin  Peter  was  destined  to  be 
single  chief  of  the  future  body,  and  next  to  him  the 
other  Apostles.”1 

5.  Fifthly,  it  must  be  observed  that  there  is  a 
definiteness  about  these  texts  which  belongs  in  a  far 
less  degree  to  those  forms  in  which  the  co-ordinate 
and  co-equal  authority  of  the  Apostles,  as  such,  is 
expressed.  This  last  is  left  to  be  harmonized  and 
brought  into  operation  by  the  superior  power  of  the 
chief.  They  are  indeed  sent  into  all  the  world,  they 
are  immediately  instituted  by  our  Lord,  they  have  the 
promise  that  his  power  shall  be  with  them,  and  that 
their  sentence  shall  stand  good  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 
This  promise,  which  is  the  most  distinct  made  to  them, 
has  been  already  gathered  up  into  the  hands  of  one, 

1  Petavius,  de  Ecc.  Hier.,  lib.  iii,  c.  14. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


121 


and  in  its  practical  issue  is  limited  by  the  necessity 
of  co-operating  with  that  one;  that  is,  the  authority  of 
Peter  includes  and  embraces  theirs,  but  theirs  is  ranged 
under  his.  Theirs  is  modified  not  only  by  being  shared, 
but  by  having  his  set  over  them.  Now  observe  how 
distinct  and  clear,  how  definite  in  their  meaning,  while 
universal  in  their  range,  are  the  things  said  of  him 
alone:  (i)  That  he  should  be  the  rock  on  which  Christ 
would  build  his  Church;  (2)  that  permanence  and 
victory  should  belong  to  that  Church  for  ever  through 
him;  (3)  that  he  should  bear  the  keys  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven ;  (4)  that  whatever  singly  he  should  bind  and 
loose,  should  be  bound  and  loosed  in  heaven  as  well 
as  on  earth;  (5)  that  he  should  confirm  his  brethren, 
the  Apostles  themselves  being  the  very  first  so  called; 
(6)  that  he  should  be  the  shepherd  of  the  fold.  What 
can  constitute  inequality  between  two  parties,  if  such 
a  series  of  promises  given  to  one,  and  not  to  the  other, 
does  not  ? 

6.  Sixthly,  these  promises  cannot  be  contemplated 
without  seeing  that  the  ordinary  and  regular  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Church  springs  from  the  person  whom 
they  designate,  and  in  whom  they  are  concentrated. 
To  take  the  last,  all  spiritual  care  is  summed  up  in  the 
word  Pastorship,  the  office  of  Priest,  Bishop,  Metro¬ 
politan,  Patriarch,  and  Pope,  rising  in  degree,  and 
extending  in  range,  but  in  its  nature  the  same.  On 
the  contrary,  Apostles  (with  this  one  exception,  in 
virtue  of  the  Primacy),  Prophets,  and  Evangelists,  are 
extraordinary  officers,  attending  the  opening  of  the 
dispensation,  but  afterwards  dropping  off.  But  the 
Church,  as  it  was  to  endure  for  ever,  and  the  orderly 


122 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


arrangement  of  the  divine  ministry,  were  summed  up 
in  the  Primacy,  and  flowed  forth  from  it  as  the  full 
receptacle  of  the  virtue  of  God  the  Word  Incarnate. 
And  so  it  is  the  head  of  the  ministerial  body.  All 
which  is  set  forth  as  in  a  picture  to  the  mind,  in  that 
scene  upon  the  shore  of  the  lake  of  Galilee,  when  the 
Lord  said  to  Peter,  “  Feed  my  sheep.” 

7.  And,  again,  Peter  was  thus  made  the  beginning 
and  principle  of  spiritual  power,  as  it  left  the 
person  of  God  the  Word,  not  for  once,  but  for  ever. 
Long  as  the  structure  should  endure,  its  principle  of 
cohesion  must  bind  it.  As  the  law  of  gravitation  binds 
all  worlds  together  in  the  natural  kingdom,  and  is  a 
continuous  source  of  strength  and  harmony,  so  should 
be  in  the  spiritual  kingdom  that  force  which  the  same 
wisdom  of  God  established.  It  goes  on  with  power 
undiminished ;  it  is  the  full  fountain-head  from  which 
all  streams  emanate;  it  is  the  highest  image  of  God’s 
power  as  the  centre  and  source  of  all  things.  This  idea 
is  dwelt  upon  by  St  Cyprian  and  St  Augustine,  as  well 
as  by  Pope  St  Innocent,1  the  contemporary  of  the 
latter,  and  was  afresh  expressed  in  a  synodical  letter 
of  the  three  provinces  of  Africa  to  Pope  Theodore, 
in  a.d.  646,  “  No  one  can  doubt  there  is  in  the  Apostolic 
see  a  great  unfailing  fountain,  pouring  forth  waters 
for  all  Christians,  whence  rich  streams  proceed,  bounti¬ 
fully  irrigating  the  whole  Christian  world.”2 

8.  And,  lastly,  in  these  great  promises  Peter  is 
specially  set  forth  as  the  type  and  the  efficient  cause 

1  St  Cyprian,  de  Unitate,  c.  3.  St  Aug.  to  Pope  Innocent, 
Ep.  177,  n.  19.  Pope  Innocent  to  the  Councils  of  Carthage 
and  Numidia.  •  2  Mansi,  x  919. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  123 

of  visible  unity  in  the  Church,  Such  was  the  very 
purpose  of  Christ,  that  his  disciples  might  be  one,  as 
he  and  the  Father  are  one.  For  this  end,  in  the  words 
of  St  Augustine,  “  He  entrusted  his  sheep  to  Peter, 
as  to  another  self,  he  willed  to  make  him  one  with  him¬ 
self  and  in  the  words  of  St  Leo,  “  He  assumed  him 
into  the  participation  of  his  indivisible  unity.”1  But 
this  is  seen  no  less  plainly  in  the  words  of  Christ 
than  in  the  Fathers;  for  he  made  one  Rock,  one  Bearer 
of  the  keys,  one  Confirmer  of  the  brethren,  and  one 
Shepherd.  The  union  of  millions  of  naturally  con¬ 
flicting  wills  in  the  profession  and  belief  of  one  doctrine 
is  almost  the  very  highest  work  of  divine  power;  and 
as  grace — that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit  diffused  in  the  heart — 
is  the  inward  efficient  of  this,  so  the  outward,  both 
symbol  and  instrument,  is  the  Primacy,  that  “  other 
self  ”  which  the  Lord  left  in  the  world.  And  as  the 
Church  of  God  through  every  succeeding  age  grows 
and  expands,  the  need  of  this  power  becomes  greater 
and  not  less,  and  reverence  to  that  “  single  chair  in 
which  unity  was  to  be  observed  by  all,”2  a  more  im¬ 
perative  virtue,  or  rather  an  ever-deepening  instinct, 
of  the  Christian  mind. 

But  antiquity  itself  drew  no  other  conclusions  from 
the  concentration  of  these  great  privileges  in  the  person 
of  Peter.  We  have  but  to  go  back  to  a  time  before  the 
present  nationalities  of  Europe,  those  jealous  foes  of 
Peter’s  authority,  had  come  into  existence,  and  we  find 
the  chief  men  of  France,  and  Spain,  and  Italy,  inter¬ 
preting  the  above  texts  as  we  have  done.  Take  one 

1  St  Aug.,  Serm.  46.  St  Leo,  Epistle  10. 

2  St  Optatus,  cont.  Parm.,  lib.  ii,  c.  6. 


124  ST  PETER:  his  name  and  his  office 

whose  testimony  from  the  circumstances  of  his  life 
ought  to  be  above  suspicion.  John  Cassian  was  by 
birth  a  Scythian,  was  educated  in  a  monastery  at 
Bethlehem,  travelled  through  Egypt,  and  made  himeslf 
acquainted  with  its  most  distinguished  religious  men, 
went  to  Constantinople,  and  was  ordained  deacon  by 
St  Chrysostom,  and  afterwards  at  Rome  priest  by  Pope 
Innocent  I.  On  the  capture  of  Rome  by  Alaric,  he 
settled  at  Marseilles,  about  the  year  410,  and  there 
founded  two  monasteries.  In  his  work  on  the  In¬ 
carnation  he  says,1  “  Let  us  ask  him  who  is  supreme, 
both  as  disciple  among  disciples  and  as  a  teacher  among 
teachers,  who,  steering  the  course  of  the  Roman 
Church,  held  the  supremacy  as  well  of  the  faith  as  of 
the  priesthood.  Tell  us,  therefore,  tell  us,  we  pray, 
O  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles,  tell  us  how  the  churches 
ought  to  believe.  For  just  it  is  that  thou  who  wast 
taught  of  the  Lord,  shouldst  teach  us,  and  open  to  us 
the  door  whose  key  thou  hast  received.  Shut  out  all 
who  undermine  the  heavenly  house,  and  turn  away 
those  who  attempt  to  make  an  entry  through  treacherous 
caverns  and  illicit  approaches ;  because  it  is  certain  that 
no  one  shall  be  able  to  enter  the  door  of  the  kingdom 
save  he  to  whom  the  key  placed  by  thee  in  the  Church 
shall  open  it.  Tell  us,  therefore,  how  we  ought  to 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  to  confess  our 
common  Lord.”  Again,  fourteen  hundred  years  ago, 
Maximus,  Bishop  of  Turin  in  that  day,  confessed  by 
his  words,  what  his  successor  of  the  present  day  bears 
witness  to  by  his  sufferings;  for  he  writes  of  Peter, 
“  As2  the  Good  Shepherd  he  received  the  defence  of 
1  Lib.  iii,  c.  12.  2  De  Petro  Apostolo,  Horn.  4. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  125 

the  flock,  so  that  he,  who  before  had  been  weak  in  his 
own  case,  might  become  the  confirmation  to  all:  and 
he  who  had  been  shaken  by  the  temptation  of  the 
question  asked  him,  might  be  a  foundation  to  the  rest 
by  the  stability  of  his  faith.  In  short,  for  the  firmness 
of  his  devotion  he  is  called  the  Rock  of  the  Churches, 
as  the  Lord  says,  ‘  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  Rock 
I  will  build  my  Church.*  For  he  is  called  the  Rock, 
because  he  was  the  first  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
faith  among  the  nations,  and  because ,  as  an  immovable 
stone ,  he  holds  together  the  framework  and  the  mass 
of  the  whole  Christian  structure.  Peter,  therefore,  for 
his  devotion  is  called  the  Rock,  and  the  Lord  is  named 
the  Rock  by  his  inherent  power,  as  the  Apostle  says, 
*  And  they  drank  of  the  spiritual  rock  that  followed 
them,  and  the  rock  was  Christ.’  Rightly  does  he  merit 
to  share  the  name ,  who ,  likewise ,  merits  to  share  the 
work”  Again,  far  and  wide  has  the  lying  story  been 
spread  by  false-hearted  men  who  above  all  things  hate 
the  spiritual  kingdom  which  God  has  set  up  in  the 
world,  that  Peter’s  power  has  been  the  growth  of 
gradual  encroachment  on  the  secular  authority.  Now, 
long  before  Pelayo  renewed  the  Spanish  monarchy 
in  the  mountains  of  the  Asturias,  and  while  Augustine, 
sent  by  Pope  Gregory,  was  laying  the  foundation  of  the 
English  Church,  St  Isidore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  from 
598  to  636,  the  very  highest  of  the  ancient  Spanish 
doctors,  wrote  thus  explicitly  to  his  colleague  at 
Toledo:1  “As  to  the  question  of  the  equality  of  the 
Apostles,  Peter  is  pre-eminent  over  the  rest,  who 
merited  to  hear  from  the  Lord,  ‘  Thou  shalt  be  called 

1  Ad  Eugenium  Toletanum. 


126  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Cephas.  .  .  .  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church/  And  not  from  any  one  else, 
but  from  the  very  Son  of  God  and  the  Virgin,  he  was 
the  first  to  receive  the  honour  of  the  pontificate  in  the 
Church  of  Christ,  to  whom  also,  after  the  resurrection 
of  the  Son  of  God,  was  said  by  the  same,  ‘  Feed  my 
lambs/  noting  by  the  name  of  lambs  the  prelates  of 
the  Churches.  And  although  the  dignity  of  this  power 
is  derived  to  all  Catholic  Bishops,  yet  in  a  more  special 
manner  it  remains  for  ever  in  the  Roman  Bishop,  who 
is  by  a  certain  singular  privilege  set  as  the  head  over 
the  other  limbs.  Whoso,  therefore,  renders  not 
reverently  to  him  due  obedience,  involves  himself,  as 
being  severed  from  the  head,  in  the  schism  of  the 
Acephali.” 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  such  authorities  of  a 
period  prior  to  the  formation  of  all  the  existing 
European  states.  It  was  the  will  of  God,  providing 
for  his  Church,  that  before  the  old  Roman  society 
was  utterly  upheaved  from  its  foundations  by  the 
deluge  of  the  Northern  tribes,  reverence  for  St  Peter’s 
throne  should  be  fixed  as  an  immovable  rock,  on  which 
a  new  Christian  civilization  might  be  founded.  Thus 
Pope  Gregory  II,  writing  to  the  Emperor  Leo  the 
Isaurian,  about  the  year  717,  only  sums  up  the  force 
and  effect  of  all  preceding  tradition,  when  he  says, 
“  The  whole  West  turns  its  eyes  upon  us,  and,  un¬ 
worthy  though  we  be,  puts  complete  trust  in  us,  and 
in  that  blessed  Peter,  whose  image  you  threaten  to 
overturn,  but  whom  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  West  count 
for  a  God  upon  earth.”1 

1  Mansi,  Concil.,  tom.  xii  972. 


CHAPTER  V 


ST  PETER’S  PRIMACY  AS  EXHIBITED  IN  THE 

ACTS 

The  purpose1  of  St  Luke  in  writing  the  Acts  seems 
to  have  been  to  set  before  us  the  labours  and  sufferings 
of  the  Apostles  in  planting  and  propagating  the  Church. 
But  he  has  divided  the  book  very  distinctly  into  two 
portions ;  the  latter,  from  the  thirteenth  chapter  to  the 
end,  with  one  short  exception,  is  wholly  occupied  with 
the  labours  of  St  Paul,  “  the  vessel  of  election,”  in 
spreading  the  faith  among  the  Gentiles,  and  so  con¬ 
tains  the  particular  history  of  that  Apostle,  and  the 
Churches  founded  by  him.  The  former,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  the  twelfth  chapter,  embraces 
the  history  of  the  Apostles  in  common,  and  of  the  whole 
Church,  as  it  rose  at  Jerusalem,  and  was  spread  first 
in  Judea,  then  in  Samaria,  and  finally  extended  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  former  history,  then,  is  universal;  the 
latter,  particular. 

Moreover,  to  use  the  words  of  St  Chrysostom,2 
“  We  may  here  see  the  promises  which  Christ  made 
in  the  Gospels  carried  into  execution,  and  the  bright 
light  of  truth  shining  in  the  very  actions,  and  a  great 
change  in  the  disciples,  arising  from  the  Spirit  that 
had  entered  into  them.  ...  You  will  see  here 

1  Passaglia,  p.  138. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  140.  St  Chrys.  in  Acta,  Horn.  1. 

127 


128  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Apostles  speeding  on  the  wing  over  land  and  sea,  and 
men  once  timid  and  unskilled,  suddenly  changed  into 
despisers  of  wealth,  and  conquerors  of  glory  and  all  other 
passions;  you  will  see  them  united  in  the  utmost 
harmony,  without  jealousy,  which  once  they  had, 
without  contention  for  the  higher  place.” 

We  may  say,  then,  in  a  word,  that  the  Gospels  are 
a  history  of  the  Head,  and  the  Acts  of  the  mystical 
Body.  Hence  both  issue  forth  from  one  and  the  same 
fountain  and  source.  The  history  of  the  Head  begins 
with  that  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whereby  Christ 
was  conceived,  and  “  the  race1  of  God  and  of  man 
became  one.  For  just  as  the  union  of  man  with 
woman  joins  two  families,  so,  upon  Christ  assuming 
flesh,  by  that  flesh  the  whole  Church  became  of  kin 
with  Christ,  Paul  became  Christ’s  kinsman,  and  Peter, 
each  one  of  the  faithful,  and  every  holy  person. 
Therefore,  says  Paul,2  ‘  being  the  offspring  of  God,’ 
and  again  ‘  we  are  the  body  of  Christ  and  members  in 
particular  ’ — that  is,  through  the  flesh,  which  he  has 
assumed — we  are  his  kinsmen.”  Now,  the  history  of 
the  Body,  proceeding  from  the  same  fountain-head, 
sets  before  us  the  Holy  Spirit,  who,  by  descending 
first  on  the  teachers,  and  afterwards  on  the  disciples, 
exalts  and  advances  all,  and  by  imparting  himself, 
imparts  “  the  proportional  deification  of  man  ” — that 
is,  “  the  utmost  possible  assimilation  and  union  with 

God.”3  For  “  the  Spirit  works  in  us  by  his  proper 

0 

1  St  Chrys.  Horn,  in  Ascens.,  and  in  Acta,  tom.  iii,  p.  773. 

2  Acts  xvii  28,  29,  and  compare  1  Cor.  xii  12-17  with 
Eph.  iv  16. 

3  Dionys.  de  Ccel.  Hier.,  cap.  1,  §  3. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  129 

power,  truly  sanctifying  and  uniting  us  to  himself 
into  one  frame,  and  making  us  partakers  of  the  divine 
nature  ”:x  “  becoming,  as  it  were,  a  quality  of  the 
Godhead  in  us,  and  dwelling  in  the  saints,  and  abiding 
for  ever.,, 

Now  it  is2  manifest  that  if  the  first  twelve  chapters 
of  the  Acts  contain  the  history  of  the  Church  from  its 
beginning,  and  what  the  Apostles  did  for  its  first 
formation,  its  growth,  and  its  form  of  government, 
all  this  has  the  closest  connection  with  the  question 
as  to  Peter’s  prerogatives.  For  the  historical  accounts 
in  the  Acts,  which  exhibit  the  execution  of  Christ’s 
promises  and  intentions,  naturally  tend  to  set  in  the 
fullest  light,  and  to  reveal  distinctly,  whatever  as  to 
the  administration  of  the  Church  may  be  less  clearly 
foretold  in  the  Gospels.  For  in  itself  the  execution  is 
declaratory  of  the  enactment ,  and  supplies  a  safe  rule 
for  understanding  and  determining  the  words  of 
institution.  Now,  if  we  apply  this  rule  to  the  present 
question,  it  will  be  apparent  that  those  expressions  of 
the  Gospel,  which  we  assigned  to  the  divine  institution 
of  the  Primacy,  cannot  be  otherwise  received  without 
making  the  execution  in  the  Acts  at  variance  with  what 
the  Gospels  record. 

For,  take  it  as  a  still  doubtful  hypothesis  whether 
there  exist  evangelical  testimonies  of  Peter’s  institution 
to  be  head  and  chief  of  the  Apostles.  What  needs  it  to 
turn  this  hypothesis  into  certainty  ?  What  should  we 
expect  of  Peter,  if  he  really  had  received  from  Christ 
the  charge  of  leading  the  other  Apostles  ?  That  he 

1  St  Cyril.  Thes.,  lib.  xxxiv,  p.  352,  and  lib.  ix,  on  John, 
p.  810.  2  Passaglia,  p.  143. 


9 


130  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

should  never  follow,  but  always  be  at  the  head ;  should 
close  dissensions,  weigh  and  terminate  controversies, 
punish  emergent  offences,  maintain  the  general 
discipline,  give  the  support  of  his  counsel  and  authority 
in  need,  and  leave  undone  none  of  those  functions 
which  accompany  the  office  of  head  and  supreme  ruler  ? 
Hence  it  is  plain  that  there  are  two  ways,  the  one 
absolute,  the  other  hypothetical,  by  which  a  decisive 
judgement  may  be  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  Acts, 
as  to  whether  Peter’s  Primacy  was  instituted  in  the 
Gospels.  Critics  and  philosophers  are  perpetually 
using  both  these  tests.  Thus,  the  former,  “  if  a 
certain  work — say  the  epistles  of  the  martyr  Ignatius — 
be  genuine,  it  ought  to  contain  certain  characteristics. 
But  it  does  contain  these  and  so  is  genuine.”  Or 
absolutely,  “  a  certain  work,  the  epistles  of  Ignatius, 
contains  all  which  we  should  expect  in  a  genuine  work, 
therefore  it  is  genuine.”  The  latter  infer,  “  If  bodies 
be  moved  by  the  law  of  gravitation,  they  would  pass 
through  a  certain  space  under  such  and  such  a  con¬ 
dition.  But  this  they  do,  and  accordingly  are  moved 
by  gravitation.”  Or  absolutely,  “  Bodies  left  to  them¬ 
selves  pass  through  space  under  such  conditions  as  they 
would  follow,  if  impelled  by  gravitation.  Accordingly, 
they  are  so  impelled.”  Now,  in  the  parallel  case,  “  If 
Christ  in  the  Gospels  preordained  a  form  of  Church 
government,  which  gathered  up  the  supreme  power 
and  visible  headship  into  Peter’s  hands,  the  exercise  of 
such  institution  ought  to  be  found  in  the  Acts.  But 
it  is  so  found.  Therefore,”  etc.  Or  again,  “  No  one 
would  expect  certain  acts  from  Peter,  unless  he  were 
the  head  of  all  the  Apostles ;  and  all  would  fairly  expect 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  13 1 

those  acts  of  Peter,  if  they  recognized  him  as  so  set 
over  all  by  Christ.  Now,  in  the  general  history  of  the 
Apostles  we  find  such  acts  recorded  of  Peter,  and  that 
not  partially,  here  and  there,  but  in  a  complete  series. 
Accordingly  the  history  of  the  rising  Church,  exhibited 
in  the  first  part  of  the  Acts,  demands  Peter’s  Primacy 
for  its  explanation ;  and  if  we  deny  that  Primacy,  and 
take  in  another  sense  the  words  recording  its 
institution  in  the  Gospel,  the  history  becomes 
unintelligible.” 

Now,  this  reasoning  is  conclusive  in  either  way, 
provided  only  that  what  we  have  asserted  be  really 
found  in  the  Acts.  The  proof  of  this  may  be  either 
general,  or  piecemeal  and  particular.  We  will  take 
both  in  order,  beginning  with  the  former. 

1.  First,1  then,  we  must  repeat,  as  concerns  that 
whole  portion  of  the  Acts  containing  the  history  of  the 
universal  Church,  and  all  the  Apostles— viz.,  the  first 
twelve  chapters — a  remark  before  made  as  to  the 
Gospels,  which  is,  that  Peter  singly  is  more  often 
mentioned  than  all  the  rest  put  together.  For  Peter’s 
name  occurs  more  than  fifty  times,  the  others  very 
seldom,  and  those  who  are  found  the  oftenest,  John 
and  James,  are  recorded,  the  former  seven  or  eight, 
the  latter  three  or  four  times.  Yet  this  is  a  history 
of  them  all :  Luke  is  recording  the  common  exertions  of 
all  the  Apostles  in  building  up  the  Church.  This  is 
the  very  distinction  between  the  former  and  the  latter 
portion  of  his  book,  which  is  confined  to  the  labours 
of  St  Paul,  leaving  aside  the  rest  of  the  Church.  What 
then  is  the  reason  that  Peter,  in  a  general  history,  is 

1  Passaglia,  p.  144. 


132  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

so  often  brought  forward,  and  the  rest,  either  singly 
or  in  conjunction,  so  seldom  ?  Because  after  our 
Lord’s  glorious  ascension  Peter  stood  to  the  eleven 
in  an  analogous  position  to  that  held  by  our  Lord,  so 
long  as  he  was  visible,  towards  the  whole  College;  be¬ 
cause  Peter  was  become  the  head,  and  the  rest,  as 
members,  were  ranged  under  him. 

2.  Such  subordination  on  their  part,  such  pre¬ 
eminence  on  his,  Luke1  shows  yet  more  clearly,  when¬ 
ever  he  groups  Peter  with  the  rest,  by  assigning  to  him 
the  leading  place.  It  frequently  happens  to  him  to 
speak  of  Peter  and  the  rest  together,  but  on  no  one 
occasion  does  he  give  Peter  any  but  the  first  place 
and  the  leading  part.  Just  as  the  evangelists  do  with 
regard  to  Christ,  and  the  Apostles  and  disciples,  so 
Luke  prefers  Peter  to  the  rest,  to  mark  a  difference 
between  the  rank  and  office  of  Peter  and  that  of  the 
others. 

3.  Luke  seems  to  confirm  his  readers  in  such  a 
conclusion  by  the  form  which  he  follows  of  mentioning 
Peter  directly ,  and  the  rest  obliquely  or  in  a  mass . 
These  are  instances:  “  In  those  days  Peter,  rising  up 
in  the  midst  of  the  brethren ,  said  ” — “  Peter,  standing 
up  with  the  Eleven ,  lifted  up  his  voice  ” — “  They  said 
to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  ” — “  Peter,  with 
John ,  fastening  his  eyes  upon  him,  said,  Look  upon 
us  ” — “  Peter  and  the  Apostles  answering,  said.”2 
Now,  what  form  of  writing  could  Luke  choose,  to 
refute  an  opinion  about  the  universal  equality  of  the 
Apostles  ?  Or  to  show  Peter  as  set  over  the  rest,  and 

1  Acts  i  13;  ii  14;  iii  1-3;  iv  19;  viii  14. 

2  Acts  i  15;  ii  14,  37;  iii  4;  v  29. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  133 

to  satisfy  in  this  even  the  most  unreasonable  ?  Either 
the  form  which  he  did  choose  is  calculated  to  do  this, 
or  none  such  can  be  found. 

4.  Add  to  this  that  Peter  is  represented  as  speaking 
and  answering,  when  the  occasion  would  suggest  that 
all  the  Apostles,  equally,  should  disclose  their  mind. 
The  reproaches  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  affected  not 
Peter  singly,  but  all  alike;  yet  he  alone  stands  forth, 
he  alone  lifts  up  his  voice  and  in  a  long  speech  brings 
them  to  sound  reflection.  The  multitude,  struck 
with  compunction,  asked  not  Peter  only,  but  the  rest 
likewise,  “  What  shall  we  do,  men  and  brethren  ?” 
Yet  it  is  forthwith  added,  “  But  Peter  said  to  them.” 
Upon  the  miracle  by  which  one  who  had  been  lame 
from  his  mother’s  womb  was  healed,  “  all  the  people 
ran  together  to  them,”  both  Peter  and  John,  but  Peter 
alone  speaks,  and  takes  on  himself  the  defence  of  the 
common  cause:  “  Peter  seeing,  made  answer  to  the 
people.”1  Fresh  instances  may  be  found  in  chaps,  iv 
6,  7,  and  v  2,  3.  The  result  of  the  whole  is  that  Peter 
is  continually  “  the  mouthpiece  of  the  Apostles,”2 
always  takes  the  lead,  and  gives  his  own  mind,  as 
conveying  that  of  the  rest. 

On  what  ground  does  he  do  this  ?  Was  it  from 
natural  fervour  of  disposition  ?  But  it  was  the  same 
after  he  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  as  before.  Was 
it  the  result  of  superior  age,  or  first  calling  ?  No  !  facts 
refute  this.  What  other  cause  can  be  suggested  save 
that  Primacy  which  the  Gospels  record  and  the  Acts 
confirm  ? 

5.  To  this  we  must  likewise  refer  it  that  Luke,  while 

1  Acts  ii  13,  37,  38;  iii  11,  12.  2  St  Chrysostom. 


134  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

he  amply  describes  actions  which  belong  to  Peter, 
rather  hints  at  than  narrates  what  concerns  the  other 
Apostles.  Thus  he  leaves  it  to  be  understood  that 
the  others  spoke,  while  he  gives  Peter’s  discourses 
entire,  and  seems  to  have  chosen  them  as  the  principal 
material  of  his  history.  He  simply  suggests  that 
miracles  were  wrought  by  the  rest,  but  records  par¬ 
ticularly  what  Peter  did  for  the  establishment  of  the 
faith.  He  relates  very  little  of  those  who  became 
Christians  by  the  exertion  of  others,  but  notes  at  large 
the  abundant  fruit  of  Peter’s  teaching.  Take  an  ancient 
author’s  summary  of  the  Acts,  “  this  whole  volume 
is  about  the  ascension  of  Christ  after  the  resurrection, 
and  about  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  holy 
Apostles,  and  how  and  where  the  disciples  announced 
Christ’s  religion,  and  all  the  wondrous  deeds  which 
they  did  by  prayer  and  faith  in  Him,  and  about  Paul’s 
divine  calling  from  heaven,  his  apostleship,  and  fruitful 
preaching,  and  in  a  word  about  those  many  great 
dangers  which  the  Apostles  underwent  for  Christ.”1 
Follow,  out  of  this,  all  which  concerns  the  universal 
Church  in  the  first  twelve  chapters,  and  Peter  will  be 
found  not  only  the  principal,  but  wellnigh  the  only, 
figure  in  the  foreground. 

6.  Hence,  as  the  Gospels  may  be  called  the  history 
of  Christ,  so  this  first  part  of  the  Acts  may  be  called 
the  history  of  Peter ;  for  as  Christ  occupies  each  page 
of  the  Gospels,  so  Peter  here.  Nothing  can  be  more 
emphatic  or  more  just  than  St  Chrysostom’s  words: 
“  Behold  him  making  his  rounds  on  every  side,  and  the 
first  to  be  found;  when  an  Apostle  was  to  be  chosen, 
1  Euthalius,  apud  Zaccagnium,  p.  410. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  135 

he  was  the  first;  when  the  Jews  were  to  be  told  that 
they  were  not  drunken ;  when  the  lame  man  was  to  be 
healed;  when  the  multitude  was  to  be  addressed,  he  is 
before  the  rest;  when  they  had  to  do  with  the  rulers, 
it  is  he;  when  with  Ananias,  when  healings  took  place 
from  the  shadow,  still  it  is  he.  Where  there  was 
danger,  it  is  he,  and  where  there  was  dispensation; 
but  when  all  is  tranquil,  they  act  in  common.  He 
sought  not  the  greater  honour.  But  again,  when 
miracles  are  to  be  worked,  he  comes  forth  before  the 
rest.”1  What  can  prove  Peter’s  pre-eminence  if  this 
does  not  ?  His  words  on  another  occasion  deserve 
mention.  Alluding  to  the  title  “  Acts  of  the  Apostles,” 
which  seems  to  promise  their  common  history,  he  ob¬ 
serves,  “  Yet  if  you  search  accurately,  the  first  part  of 
the  book  exhibits  Peter’s  miracles  and  teaching,  but 
little  on  the  part  of  the  other  Apostles;  and  after  this 
the  whole  account  is  spent  on  Paul.”  But  he  adds, 
“  How  are  they  the  Acts  of  all  the  Apostles  ?  Because, 
according  to  Paul,  when  one  member  is  glorified,  all 
the  members  are  glorified  with  it ;  the  historian  did  not 
entitle  them  the  Acts  of  Peter  and  of  Paul,  but  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  the  promise  of  the  writer  includes 
them  all.”2  Now,  every  one  must  feel  the  very  high 
distinction  given  to  Paul  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book, 
when  the  historian  turns  away  from  the  general  history 
of  the  Church  to  record  his  particular  labours,  in 
which,  no  doubt,  the  object  was  to  show  the  progress 
of  the  Church  among  the  Gentiles;  but  with  regard 
to  the  part  which  is  common  to  the  whole  Church, 

1  In  Acta,  Horn.  21,  n.  2. 

2  Horn,  in  Acta,  n.  8,  tom.  iii  764. 


136  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

another  thought  is  suggested.  The  history  of  what 
Peter  taught  and  did,  to  build  up  and  extend  the 
Church,  is  considered  the  common  history  of  the 
Apostles,  and  so  inscribed  as  their  Acts.  But  can  this 
be  called  an  accurate  expression,  unless  Peter  had  been 
the  head  of  the  Apostles  ?  It  is  very  plain  that  the 
acts  of  a  head  are  imputed  to  the  whole  body;  to  a 
college  of  brethren,  what  its  chief  executes;  to  a  city 
or  kingdom,  the  deeds  of  its  prince.  But  it  is  not  plain 
how  this  can  be,  if  the  actor  be  one  of  a  number,  and 
do  not  exceed  his  brethren  in  honour  or  dignity. 
Therefore  the  Acts  of  Peter  could  be  called,  generally, 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  only  because  they  were 
considered  the  Acts  of  their  head. 

Now  let  us  pass  from  the  general  view  to  that  in 
detail. 

I.  After1  the  Lord’s  ascension  a  most  important 
point  immediately  arose,  whether,  that  is,  the  number 
of  the  Twelve  was  to  be  filled  up  by  the  election  of  a 
new  Apostle  to  take  the  place  of  Judas.  The  will  of 
Christ  on  this  matter  was  to  be  learnt;  a  witness  was 
to  be  chosen  who  should  participate  in  the  mission  of 
Christ  Himself,  according  to  the  words,  “As  the  Father 
hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you,”  and  carry  the  light  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  world;  and  one  was  to 
be  elected  to  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolate,  the  highest 
rank  in  the  Church.  It  was,  therefore,  so  important 
a  matter,  that  no  one  could  undertake  it  save  he  who 
had  received  the  vicarious  headship  of  our  Lord  him¬ 
self.  Now,  the  history  in  the  Acts  tells  us  that  Peter 
alone  spoke  on  the  subject  of  substituting  a  fresh 

1  Passaglia,  p.  148. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  137 

Apostle  for  Judas;  Peter  alone  proved  from  Scripture 
the  necessity  of  the  election,  defined  the  conditions  of 
eligibility,  and  appointed  the  mode  of  election,  and 
presided  over  and  directed  the  whole  transac¬ 
tion. 

For  Luke  begins  thus;  “  In  those  days,”  the  interval 
between  the  Ascension  and  Pentecost,  “  Peter  rising 
up  in  the  midst  of  the  brethren,  said.”  Here  the 
important  prerogative  of  initiation  is  shown  to  belong 
to  Peter,  and  by  the  phrase,  “  in  the  midst  of  the 
brethren,”  or  “  disciples,” — which  is  often  used  of 
Christ  in  respect  of  the  Apostles — his  pre-eminence 
over  the  disciples  is  shown.  “  Brethren,  it  behoved 
that  the  Scripture  should  be  fulfilled  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  spoke  before  by  the  mouth  of  David,  concerning 
Judas,  who  was  the  leader  of  them  that  apprehended 
Jesus,  who  was  numbered  with  us,  and  had  obtained 
part  of  this  ministry  ” — that  is,  of  the  Apostolate. 
Then  having  mentioned  the  miserable  end  of  the 
traitor,  he  applies  to  him  the  prophecy:  “  For  it  is 
written  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  ‘  Let  his  habitation 
become  desolate,  and  let  there  be  none  to  dwell  there¬ 
in’:  and,”  adding  another  prophecy  from  another 
Psalm,  “  ‘  his  bishopric  let  another  take.’  5,1  Whence 
he  concludes,  “  Wherefore  of  these  men  who  have 
companied  with  us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
came  in  and  went  out  among  us,  beginning  from  the 
baptism  of  John,  until  the  day  wherein  he  was  taken 
up  from  us,  one  of  these  must  be  made  a  witness  with 
us  of  his  resurrection.”  In  these  words  Peter  plainly 
points  out  the  necessity  of  the  matter  in  question,  con- 

1  Ps.  lxix  26;  cviii  8. 


138  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

firms  it  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  speaking  in  the  char¬ 
acter  of  their  highest  interpreter,  and  as  the  appointed 
teacher  of  all;  and,  while  proposing  it  to  their  delibera¬ 
tion,  yet  requires  their  consent ;  for  the  phrase,  “  where¬ 
fore,  one  must”  means,  “  I  am  not  proposing  what 
may  be  done  or  left  undone,  but  declaring  and  pre¬ 
scribing  what  is  to  be  done.”  So  he  determines  the 
conditions  of  eligibility  and  the  form  of  election. 
Whereupon  his  hearers — “  the  number  of  persons 
together  about  an  hundred  and  twenty  ” — instantly 
agree  unanimously  to  Peter’s  proposition,  follow  its 
conditions,  and  complete  the  election. 

No  one  can  reflect  on  the  above  without  concluding 
that  if  Peter  presided  over  the  rest  by  the  authority 
of  a  divinely  chosen  headship,  no  course  could  be  more 
becoming,  both  for  Peter  and  for  the  disciples,  than 
this;  and  if,  on  the  contrary,  Peter  was  only  one  out 
of  many,  not  having  yet  even  received  the  Pentecostal 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  had  been  entrusted  by 
Christ  with  no  pre-eminent  office  in  the  ministry, 
nothing  could  be  more  unfitting  for  both.  We  have 
therefore  to  infer  that  Peter  “  stood  in  the  midst  of  his 
disciples,”  as  a  superior  among  inferiors,  not  as  an 
equal  among  equals,  and  conceived  that  the  charge  of 
supplying  an  Apostle,  and  filling  up  the  Apostolic 
college,  belonged  in  chief  to  himself,  because  he  and 
they  alike  were  conscious  that  he  was  the  steward  set 
in  chief  over  the  Lord’s  family. 

But,  clear  as  this  is  on  the  face  of  the  narration 
itself,  fresh  light  is  shed  on  it  by  the  fact  that  St 
Chrysostom  observed  and  recorded  this  very  conclu¬ 
sion.  For  why  did  Peter  alone  arise  ?  Why  was  he 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  139 

the  first  and  the  only  one  to  speak  ?  “  Both1  as  fervent, 

and  as  one  entrusted  by  Christ  with  the  flock,  and  as  the 
first  of  the  choir ,  he  ever  first  begins  to  speak.”  Why 
does  he  allege  prophecy  ?  First,  that  he  might  not 
seem  with  human  counsel  “  to  attempt  a  great  matter, 
and  one  fitted  for  Christ  ” :  next  to  imitate  his  Master, 
“  he  always  reasons  from  the  Scriptures.”  “  Why 
did  he  not  singly  ask  of  Christ  to  give  him  some  one 
in  the  place  of  Judas  ?”  Because  “  Peter  had  now  im¬ 
proved,”  and  overcome  his  natural  disposition.  But 
“  might  not  Peter  by  himself  have  elected?  Certainly: 
but  he  does  not  so,  that  he  may  not  seem  partial.” 
“  Why  does  he  communicate  this  to  them,”  the  whole 
number  of  the  names  ?  That  the  matter  may  not  be 
contested,  nor  they  fall  into  strife:  “  for  ”  (he  alludes 
to  the  contention  of  the  Apostles  for  the  primacy), 
“  if  this  had  happened  to  themselves,  much  more 
would  it  to  the  others  ” — that  is,  the  candidates  to 
succeed  Judas.  Then  he  points  out  to  our  admira¬ 
tion  “  Peter  doing  this  with  common  consent,  nothing 
with  authority,2  nothing  with  lordship,”  where  we 
must  note  that  the  abuse  of  a  power  is  only  to  be  feared 
from  one  who  really  has  that  power.  For  again  he 
says,  “  he  first  acts  on  authority3  in  the  matter,  as 
having  himself  all  put  into  his  hands ,  for  to  him  Christ 
said,  4  And  thou,  in  thy  turn,  one  day  confirm  thy 
brethren.’  ” 

The  college  of  the  Apostles  completed,  it  followed 
that  the  head,  if  such  there  were,  would,  on  every 
occasion  of  danger,  be  the  first  to  protect  it  and  to 
defend  its  reputation.  Now  there  ensues  the  miracle 

1  Horn.  3,  in  Act.,  n.  1-2.  2  MOevriKus.  3  A vdevrei. 


140  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


of  the  Holy  Spirit’s  descent,  and  the  gift  of  tongues, 
whereupon  Luke  describes  the  various  opinions  of  the 
astonished  multitude,  some  of  whom  “  mocking,1  said, 
These  men  are  full  of  new  wine.”  That  is,  they 
blasphemed  the  working  of  the  Spirit,  and  by  the  most 
monstrous  calumny  were  destroying  the  good  name  of 
the  Apostles.  Whereupon,  “  Peter,  standing  up  with 
the  Eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice  and  spoke  to  them:  Ye 
men  of  Judea,  and  all  you  that  dwell  in  Jerusalem,  be 
this  known  to  you,  and  with  your  ears  receive  my  words. 
For  these  are  nor  drunk  as  you  suppose,  seeing  it  is  but 
the  third  hour  of  the  day:  but  this  is  that  which  was 
spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Joel.”  Now  here,  both  the 
form  of  the  words ,  and  the  matter ,  establish  Peter’s 
Primacy.  For  the  phrase,  “  Peter  standing  up  with 
the  Eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice  and  spoke  to  them,” 
portrays  Peter  as  the  leader  of  the  band,  the  master 
of  the  family.  So  St  Chrysostom,2  “  What  means  with 
the  Eleven?  They  uttered  a  common  voice,  and  he 
was  the  mouthpiece  of  all.  And  the  Eleven  stand 
beside  him,  bearing  witness  to  his  words.”  And  as  to 
the  matter ,  Peter  alone  fulfils  the  part  of  teacher,  by 
interpreting  Scripture,  and  declaring  the  agreement 
of  both  covenants:  Peter  alone  maintains  the  common 
cause;  Peter  alone,  representing  all,  addresses  the 
multitude  in  the  name  of  all.  “  Observe,  too,  the 
harmony  of  the  Apostles :  they  gave  up  to  him  the  office 
of  speaking:”3  that  is,  they  yielded  to  him  who  was  the 
head,  and  who,  as  he  says,  showed  here  “  the  courage,” 
as  before  “  the  providential  care  ”  of  the  head. 

1  Acts  ii.  2  In  Acta,  Horn.  4,  n.  3. 

3  St  Chrysostom,  as  before. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  1 41 

After  refuting  the  calumny,  Peter  goes  on  in  a  noble 
discourse  to  explain  prophecies,  and  then  coming  to  the 
dispensation  of  Jesus,  gives  the  strongest  proofs  of 
his  resurrection  and  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  and  finally  sums  up  with  great  force  and 
authority.  “  Therefore,  let  all  the  house  of  Israel 
know  most  certainly,  that  God  hath  made  both  Lord 
and  Christ  this  same  Jesus  whom  you  have  crucified.” 

Now,  what1  is  here  to  our  purpose  ?  It  is  this,  that 
Luke  seems  only  to  dwell  on  what  concerns  Peter :  that 
Peter,  first  of  all,  and  in  the  name  of  all,  performs  the 
office  of  a  witness,  laid  both  on  himself  and  the  rest 
(“  ye  shall  be  witnesses  to  me  ”;  “  and  you  shall  give 
witness  ”2),  saying,  “  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up, 
of  which  we  all  are  witnesses.”  Peter  first  of  all 
publicly  and  solemnly  discharges  the  duty  of  in¬ 
struction  with  authority :  first  of  all,  he  fulfils  the  charge 
set  by  Christ  on  all  the  Apostles,  “  make  disciples — 
teach  ”:  and,  first  of  all,  he  promulgates  the  necessity 
of  believing  in  Jesus  as  the  divinely  appointed  Lord 
and  Christ.  Now  these  are  things  which,  so  far  from 
allowing  an  equality  between  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles,  point  out  in  him  a  headship  over  them. 

Thereupon,  the  hearers,  struck  with  compunction 
for  having  crucified,  not  merely  a  just  man,  but  the 
Anointed  of  the  Lord,  “  said  to  Peter  and  the  rest  of 
the  Apostles  ” — here  again  he  alone  is  singly  named — 
whilst  of  all  alike  they  asked,  “  Men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do  ?”  Whereupon,  St  Chrysostom 
notes,3  “  Here  again,  where  all  are  asked,  he  alone  re- 

1  Passaglia,  p.  153.  2  Acts  i  8;  John  xv  27. 

3  In  Acta,  Horn,  7,  n.  1. 


142  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

plies.”  For,  as  Luke  goes  on,  “  Peter  said  to  them 
as  the  leader,  he  performs  what  belongs  to  all:  he 
alone  sets  forth  the  law  of  Christ.  “  Do  penance,  and 
be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins.”  He  alone  en¬ 
courages  them  with  the  promised  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  “  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  He  alone  continues  at  length  the  instruction 
of  the  hearers,  “  and  with  very  many  other  words  did 
he  testify  and  exhort  them.”  He  alone  declares  the 
fruit  of  Christian  profession,  “  save  yourselves  from 
this  perverse  generation,”  and  he  alone  it  is,  of  whose 
ministry  Luke  adds,  “  They,  therefore,  that  gladly 
received  his  word  were  baptized,  and  there  were  added, 
in  that  day,  about  three  thousand  souls.” 

And  here  we  see  how  fitting  it  was  that  Peter,  whom 
Christ  had  set  as  the  foundation  and  rock  of  the 
Church,  should  labour  with  all  his  might,  as  the  chief 
architect  after  him,  to  build  up  the  structure.  But 
what,  in  the  meantime,  of  the  other  Apostles  ?  Were 
not  they  also  architects  ?  Yes,  but  with  and  under 
Peter,  whom  accordingly  they  attend  and  support. 
The  subsequent  additions  to  the  Church’s  structure 
and  the  course  consistently  pursued  by  Peter  will  bring 
this  out  yet  more  clearly.  For  of  fresh  accretions, 
Luke  writes,  “  Many  of  them  who  had  heard  the  word, 
believed,  and  the  number  of  the  men  was  made  five 
thousand.”1  Now,  whose  word  was  this  ?  Still  the 
word  of  Peter,  who  speaks  for  the  third2  and  fourth 
time,  as  he  had  for  the  first  and  second. 

For,  as  to  the  third3  occasion,  Luke,  after  mentioning 

iActsiv4.  2  Acts  iii  12-26;  iv  8-19.  3  Acts  iii  11, 12-26. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  143 

Peter  and  John  together,  introduces  Peter  alone  as 
urging  the  children  of  Abraham  to  embrace  the  faith 
of  Christ,  and  persuading  them  that  Jesus  is  the 
Prophet  promised  by  God  through  Moses  in 
Deuteronomy.  And  as  to  the  fourth,1  he  writes, 
“  Then  Peter,  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  said  to 

them - ”  But  was  he  alone  present  ?  Not  so,  for 

the  council  “  setting  them,”  John  as  well  as  Peter,  “  in 
the  midst,  they  asked,”  on  which  Chrysostom2  observes, 
“  See  how  John  is  on  every  occasion  silent,  while  Peter 
defends  him  likewise.”  That  is,  John  was  silent,  as 
knowing  that  the  lead  belonged  to  Peter,  and  Peter 
spoke,  because  the  head  defends  not  himself  only, 
but  the  members  committed  to  him. 

Now,  reviewing  these  first  four  chapters  of  the 
Acts,  let  us  ask  these  questions.  Had  Peter  held  the 
authority  of  head  among  the  Apostles,  what  would  he 
have  done  ?  He  would  have  filled  up  the  Apostolic 
college,  carefully  watched  over  it,  protected  its  several 
members.  But  this  is  just  what  he  did.  Again,  had 
Christ  made  him  the  slipreme  teacher  and  doctor,  what 
would  he  have  done  ?  He  would  have  disclosed,  first 
to  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  to  the  disciples,  and 
then  to  the  multitude,  who  were  to  be  converted,  the 
secrets  of  the  divine  will  laid  up  in  the  Scriptures;  he 
would  have  shown  the  agreement  between  the  dis¬ 
pensation  of  Christ  and  the  oracles  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  and  so  have  proved  that  Jesus  was  the  Messias. 
But  this  he  repeatedly  did.  Once  more,  had  Christ 
made  him  the  chief  among  the  builders  of  the  Church, 
what  would  have  been  his  office  ?  He  would  have 
1  Acts  iv  7,  8.  2  In  Acta,  Horn.  8,  n.  2. 


144  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

been  the  very  first  to  set  his  hand  to  the  work,  and  to 
construct  the  building  with  living  stones;  he  would 
have  held  the  other  workmen  under  his  control,  so  that 
the  edifice  might  rise  worthy  of  Christ,  and  exactly 
answering  to  his  promises.  But  does  not  the  history 
give  precisely  this  picture  of  him,  and  does  not  the 
Church  which  Peter  raised  answer  exactly  to  the 
archetype  prescribed  by  the  Lord  ?  “  All  they  that 

believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things  common:” 
“  the  multitude  of  believers  had  but  one  heart  and  one 
soul:”  what  is  this  but  the  counterpart  of  that  divine 
prayer,  “  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art 
in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us, 
that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me  ’’P1 

II.  To  take  another  point.  The  office2  of  authori¬ 
tative  teaching  is  in  the  New  Testament  closely  con¬ 
nected  with  the  power  of  working  miracles.  Christ 
said,  “  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  to  them,  they 
would  not  have  sin ;  but  now  they  have  no  excuse  for 
their  sin  ”:  and  he  likewise  added,  “  If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  that  no  other  man  hath  done, 
they  would  not  have  sin :  but  now  they  have  both  seen 
and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father.”3  He  shows  that, 
while  faith  depended  on  preaching  and  authoritative  in¬ 
struction,  these  also  needed  the  power  of  works  to 
conciliate  conviction.  In  accordance  with  which, 
when  he  first  sent  out  his  Twelve  to  preach,  he  not  only 
charged  them  what  to  say,  “  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
at  hand,”4  but  added  the  fullest  miraculous  power, 
“  heal  the  sick,  raise  the  dead,  cleanse  the  lepers,  cast 

1  Acts  ii  44;  iv  32;  lohn  xvii  21.  2  Passaglia,  p.  157. 

3  John  xv  22-24.  4  Matt,  x  7. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


ws 


out  devils.”  And  when  more  solemnly  sending  them, 
not  to  one  people,  but  to  all  nations,  “  Go  ye  into  the 
whole  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,” 
he  adds  their  warrant,  “  these  signs  shall  follow  them 
that  believe.  In  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils, 
they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues,  they  shall  take 
up  serpents:”  and  the  Evangelist  subjoins,  “  They 
going  forth  preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working 
withal,  and  confirming  the  word  with  signs  that 
followed.”1 

Remembering,  then,  this  very  close  connection  be¬ 
tween  the  authority  of  Apostolic  teaching  and  the  power 
of  working  miracles,  we  may  fix  a  criterion  for  recog¬ 
nizing  the  exercise  of  the  supreme  office  in  teaching. 
Suppose  any  one  of  the  Apostles  to  have  been  invested 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Church  with  this  office,  how 
may  he  be  ascertained  ?  If  any  one  is  found  in¬ 
variably  the  first  to  announce  the  word  of  truth,  and 
likewise  to  confirm  it  with  miracles,  you  may  suppose 
him  to  be  that  one.  Suppose,  again,  that  Luke  in¬ 
tended  to  represent  one  of  the  Apostles  as  the  supreme 
teacher.  How  may  it  be  safely  inferred  ?  If,  in  the 
course  of  his  narration,  he  continually  exhibits  one 
as  eminent  above  all  the  rest  in  preaching  the  Gospel 
and  guaranteeing  it  by  signs.  These  are  not  tests 
arbitrarily  chosen,  but  naturally  suggested.  And  both 
exactly  fit  to  Peter,  and  to  Peter  alone.  For  he,  in  this 
history  of  the  universal  Church,  is  the  first,  nay,  well- 
nigh  the  only  one,  both  to  preach  and  to  support  his 
preaching  by  miracles.  And  Luke  takes  pains  to 
relate  no  less  his  miracles  than  his  discourses,  and 

1  Mark  xvi  15-17. 

10 


146  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

scarcely  describes  with  any  detail  either  the  one  or 
the  other,  of  any  but  Peter. 

Nay,  his  mode  of  writing  suggests  a  parallel  between 
himself  and  St  John  in  his  Gospel,  as  if  it  were  no  less 
Luke’s  intention  to  show  Peter  invested  with  the 
supreme  office,  than  John’s  to  set  forth  Christ  as  the 
head  and  teacher  of  the  Apostolic  college ;  and  no  less 
Luke’s  purpose  to  accredit  the  Church  by  Peter’s 
miracles,  than  John’s1  by  the  miracles  of  Christ  to 
establish  faith  in  him  as  the  true  son  of  God.  For  the 
circumstances  of  each  narration  point  to  this  similarity 
of  design.  As  St  John  subordinates  the  group  of 
Apostles  entirely  to  the  figure  of  Christ,  so  Luke,  very 
slightly  sketching  the  rest,  is  profuse  in  detail  of  what 
concerns  Peter,  and  marks  him  as  set  over  all.  As 
John  in  recording  the  miracles  of  Christ  dwells  on  the 
points  which  prove  his  divine  mission  and  origin  from 
the  Father,  so  Luke  directs  his  narration  to  exhibit 
the  beginning,  the  growth,  and  the  authority  of  the 
Church  as  due  to  Peter’s  miracles.  We  will  mark 
two  further  resemblances.  First,  the  miracles  which 
Luke  records  of  Peter  seem  cast  in  the  same  type  as 
those  of  Christ.  Compare  the  first  one  with  that  told 
by  John,  ch.  v: 

John  v  5-9:  “  There  was  Acts  iii  2-8:  “  And  a  cer- 
a  certain  man  there  that  had  tain  man,  who  was  lame  from 
been  eight  and  thirty  years  his  mother’s  womb,  was 
under  his  infirmity.  Him  carried,  whom  they  laid 
when  Jesus  had  seen  lying,  every  day  at  the  gate  of  the 
and  knew  that  he  had  been  temple,  which  is  called 
now  a  long  time,  he  saith  to  Beautiful.  He,  when  he  had 


1  John  xx  21. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  147 


him,  Wilt  thou  be  made 
whole  ?  The  infirm  man 
answered  him,  Sir,  I  have 
no  man,  when  the  water  is 
troubled,  to  put  me  into  the 
pond.  For  whilst  I  am 
coming  another  goeth  down 
before  me.  Jesus  said  to 
him,  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed, 
and  walk.  And  immediately 
the  man  was  made  whole, 
and  he  took  up  his  bed  and 
walked.” 


seen  Peter  and  John  about  to 
go  into  the  temple,  asked  to 
receive  an  alms.  But  Peter, 
with  John,  fastening  his  eyes 
upon  him,  said,  Look  upon 
us.  But  he  looked  earnestly 
upon  them,  hoping  that  he 
should  receive  something  of 
them.  Peter  said,  Silver  and 
gold  I  have  none,  but  what 
I  have,  I  give  thee.  In  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Nazareth,  arise  and  walk. 
And  taking  him  by  the  right 
hand,  he  lifted  him  up,  and 
forthwith  his  feet  and  soles 
received  strength,  and  he, 
leaping  up,  stood,  and 
walked.” 


How  often  had  the  hand  of  the  Lord — as  here  that 
of  Peter — healed  the  sick,  given  the  blind  sight,  cured 
the  leper,  and  raised  the  dead  !  But  if  Peter’s  miracle 
in  healing  .Eneas  of  the  palsy  carries1  one  back  im¬ 
mediately  to  the  poor  man  let  down  through  the  roof 
before  our  Lord,  there  is  a  yet  more  exact  identity 
between  the  great  miracle  of  Christ  raising  Jairus’ 
daughter  and  Peter  raising  Dorcas.  In  the  one  case, 
the  Lord  “  having  put  them  all  out,  taketh  the  father 
and  the  mother  of  the  damsel,  and  them  that  were 
with  him,  and  entereth  in  where  the  damsel  was  lying, 
and  taking  the  damsel  by  the  hand,  he  said  to  her, 
Talitha  cumi,  which,  is,  Damsel,  arise,  and  im¬ 
mediately  the  damsel  rose  up  and  walked.”  In  the 


1  Compare  Acts  ix  33,  with  Mark  ii  3-1 1. 


148  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

other  case,  Peter  came  into  the  upper  chamber,  “  and 
all  the  widows  stood  about  him  weeping — and  they 
being  all  put  forth,  Peter,  kneeling  down,  prayed,  and 
turning  to  the  body,  he  said,  Tabitha,  arise.  And  she 
opened  her  eyes,  and  seeing  Peter,  she  sat  up,1  and 
giving  her  his  hand  he  lifted  her  up.”  But  how  perfect 
the  resemblance  of  the  following : 


Luke  iv  40:  “  And  when 
the  sun  was  down,  all  they 
that  had  any  sick  with  divers 
diseases  brought  them  to 
him.  But  he,  laying  his 
hands  on  every  one  of  them, 
healed  them.  And  devils 
went  out  from  many.” 


Acts  v  15:  “  Insomuch 
that  they  brought  forth  the 
sick  into  the  streets,  and  laid 
them  on  beds  and  couches, 
that,  when  Peter  came,  his 
shadow,  at  the  least,  might 
overshadow  any  of  them,  and 
they  might  be  delivered  from 
their  infirmities.  And  there 
came  also  together  to  Jeru¬ 
salem  a  multitude  out  of  the 
neighbouring  cities,  bringing 
sick  persons,  and  such  as 
were  troubled  with  unclean 
spirits,  who  were  all  healed.” 


The  second  point  of  resemblance  is,  that  the  multi¬ 
tude  •  regarded  Peter  among  the  Apostles  as  before 
they  had  regarded  Christ:  for,  putting  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  in  the  second  place,  they  flocked  to  him, 
and  besought  his  aid.  So  that  Luke,  briefly  saying 
of  them,  that  “  by  the  hands  of  the  Apostles  were  many 
signs  and  wonders  wrought  among  the  people,”2  goes 
on  to  Peter,  and  of  him  relates  the  unheard-of  wonders 
just  described,  assigning  to  the  miracles  wrought  by 
him,  “  that  the  multitude  of  men  and  women  who 

1  Mark  v  40 ;  Acts  ix  39. 


2  Acts  v  13-14. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  149 


believed  in  the  Lord  was  more  increased.”  It  is  just 
as  when  “  there  came  to  Jesus  great  multitudes,  having 
with  them  the  dumb,  the  blind,  the  lame,  the  maimed, 
and  many  others ;  and  they  cast  them  down  at  his  feet, 
and  he  healed  them.”1  And  the  fuller  the  resemblance 
these  incidents  show  between  Peter  and  Christ,  the 
more  evident  their  proof  that  Peter’s  ministry  must  be 
considered  a  continuation  of  that  which  Christ  began. 

III.  We  proceed2  to  the  order  predetermined  by 
our  Lord  in  the  propagation  of  his  Church. 

Of  himself  he  had  said,  though  the  Redeemer  of  all, 
that  he  was  not  sent — that  is,  as  an  Apostle — actually 
to  preach,  “  save  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel  ”:  and  on  first  sending  his  Apostles,  he  gave 
them  this  commission,  “  Go  ye  not  into  the  way  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  into  the  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye 
not,  but  go  ye  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.”  But  when  about  to  ascend  to  the  Father,  he 
tells  them,  “You  shall  receive  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  coming  upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  witnesses 
unto  me  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  and  Samaria, 
and  even  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  ”  :3 — that  is, 
that  they  should  set  up  his  kingdom  through  all  the 
world,  proceeding  by  gradual  steps,  from  Jerusalem 
to  Judea,  thence  to  Samaria,  and  at  length  “  to  every 
creature  ”  in  the  whole  world. 

Now,  the  history  of  the  Acts  shows  the  exact  accom¬ 
plishment  of  this  order,  and  it  likewise  shows  that 
Simon  Peter  was  the  one  elected  chief  instrument  for 
carrying  out  these  successive  propagations  of  the 

1  Matt,  xv  30.  2  Passaglia,  p.  163. 

3  Matt,  xv  24;  x  5 ;  Acts  i  8. 


150  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Church.  What  we  have  said  already  shows  this  as  to 
the  mother  Church  of  Jerusalem,  and,  before  pro¬ 
ceeding  to  the  Gentile  Churches,  we  will  trace  the  same 
instrumentality  as  used  to  bring  the  Samaritans  into 
the  universal  kingdom. 

The  persecution  ensuing  on  the  proto-martyr 
Stephen’s  death  caused,  by  our  Lord’s  providence,  the 
dissemination  of  many  believers  through  Judea  and 
Samaria,  while  the  Apostles  alone  remained  at 
Jerusalem.  Amongst  those  who  thus  “  went  about 
preaching  the  word  of  God,”  Philip  the  deacon  came  to 
Samaria,  and  many  of  the  people,  hearing  his  words 
and  seeing  his  miracles,  were  converted  and  baptized. 
But  the  Church  thus  begun  by  the  preaching  of  the 
deacon  would  have  dried  up  without  hope  of  progress, 
had  it  not  received  the  assistance  of  those  whom  Christ 
had  set  in  the  place  of  fathers,  and  who  could  bestow 
the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  “  the  Church  is 
in  the  bishop,”1  and,  as  St  Jerome  said  of  a  faction 
which  had  a  deacon  for  its  author,  “  With  the  man  the 
sect  also  perished,  because  a  deacon  could  ordain  no 
clerk  after  him.  But  it  is  not  a  Church  which  has  no 
priest.”  Accordingly  when  “  the  Apostles,  who  were 
in  Jerusalem,  had  heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the 
word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John,”2 
who  “  laid  their  hands  upon  them,  and  they  received 
the  Holy  Ghost.”  The  providence  of  Christ,  then,  so 
ordered  the  propagation  of  his  kingdom  as  to  choose 
Peter  and  John  to  complete  and  perfect  the  Samaritan 

1  St  Cyprian,  Ep.  69.  St  Jerome,  Dialogue  con.  Luci- 
ferianos. 

2  Acts  viii  14. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  15 1 

Church.  But  was  this  on  equal  terms,  or  is  no  superior 
dignity  and  authority  apparent  in  Peter  over  John  ? 
A  regard  to  the  words  of  Luke,  and  the  series  of  acts 
recorded,  will  prevent  such  a  misconception.  For  he 
mentions  Peter  and  John,  but  he  sets  Peter  first ;  and  in 
his  record  of  what  happened  to  Simon,  John  acts  the 
second  part,  and  it  is  Peter  alone  who  teaches,  com¬ 
mands,  judges,  and  condemns,  with  authority,  as  the 
head  and  supreme  ruler.  Simon  Magus,  tempted  by 
beholding  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  visibly  bestowed 
by  imposition  of  the  Apostles’  hands,  “  offered  them 
money,”  to  both  Peter  and  John.  But  Peter  alone 
replies,  and  condemns  his  profaneness,  enlarges  on  his 
guilt,  and  solemnly  declares  that  the  gifts  of  God  are 
not  purchasable  with  money.  “  Keep  thy  money  to 
thyself  to  perish  with  thee,  because  thou  hast  thought 
that  the  gift  of  God  may  be  purchased  with  money;” 
he  discloses  Simon’s  secret  thoughts,  “  for  thy  heart 
is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God.”  He  inflicts  on  him 
excommunication,  “  thou  hast  no  part  nor  lot  in  this 
matter”;  he  exhorts  him  to  repent,  “do  penance 
therefore  from  this  thy  wickedness,  and  pray  to  God, 
if  perhaps  this  thought  of  thy  heart  may  be  forgiven 
thee.”  Now  here  John,  the  next  of  the  Apostles  in 
rank,  is  with  Peter,  yet  he  does  not  speak,  teach,  or 
enjoin:  Peter  does  all  this  singly.  He  answers  Simon’s 
question,  lances  and  probes  the  most  secret  wound  of 
his  conscience,  declares  how  divine  gifts  are  given, 
proscribes  the  plague  of  simony,  orders  penance,  and 
inflicts  excommunication  on  a  scandalous  public 
offender.  Thus  the  twenty-second  of  the  Apostolic 
Canons  runs,  “  If  any  bishop,  priest  or  deacon,  hath 


152  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

obtained  this  dignity  by  money,  let  him  and  his  ordainer 
be  deposed,  and  altogether  be  deprived  of  communion, 
as  Simon  Magus  was  by  Peter.”  Nothing  but  an 
inequality  of  rank  between  Peter  and  John  will  account 
for  Luke’s  narration  here.  Now,  if  John  was  inferior 
to  Peter,  much  more  the  rest. 

But  there  is  another  proof  of  his  superiority  here, 
in  that  God  caused  Simon  Peter  to  engage  Simon 
Magus.  Thus,  by  his  providence,  “  reaching  from 
end  to  end  mightily,  and  ordering  all  things  sweetly,” 
the  first-born  of  Christ  is  brought  to  conflict  with  the 
“  first-born  of  the  devil,”  the  chief  of  teachers  with  the 
earliest  of  heretics,  and  prime  of  that  long  brood  of 
the  evil  one,  who  are  to  persecute  “  the  seed  of  the 
woman.”  Thus  ancient  writers  record  that  Peter 
afterwards  went  to  Rome  on  purpose  to  expose  the 
acts  of  this  same  Simon.  Thus  they  mention  his 
engaging  with  the  famous  Alexandrine  Apion,  the 
enemy  of  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  faith  alike. 
And  thence,  too,  probably  the  very  ancient  writer 
(whoever  he  was)  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement  to  St  James, 
begins  it  by  recording  how  “  Simon,  for  his  true  faith 
and  his  firm  grounding  in  doctrine,  was  appointed  to 
be  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  and  for  this  very 
reason  by  Jesus  Himself  with  most  true  augury  had  his 
name  changed  to  Peter,  the  first-fruits  of  our  Lord,  the 
first  of  the  Apostles,  to  whom  first  the  Father  revealed 
the  Son,  whom  Christ  with  reason  blessed  .  .  .  he 
who ,  as  the  most  able  of  all ,  was  commanded  to  illuminate 
the  West ,  the  darker  quarter  of  the  world ,  and  who  was 
enabled  to  succeed.” 

But  as  to  what  is  said,  that  “  the  Apostles  who  were 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  153 

in  Jerusalem  sent  to  the  Samaritans  Peter  and  John,” 
it  must  be  remembered,  that  at  the  head  of  those  thus 
sending  was  Peter  himself,  and  that  next  to  him  John 
was  the  most  distinguished  of  the  Apostolic  college. 
And  since  it  is  evident  from  all  that  we  have  hitherto 
seen,  that  in  whatever  concerned  the  Apostles  equally, 
Peter  took  the  leading  part,  and  in  their  common  de¬ 
liberations  exercised  the  initiative,  it  must  be  con¬ 
cluded  that  he  was  likewise  the  first  author  of  this 
resolution,  to  send  himself  and  John  to  the  Samaritans. 
And  this  is  confirmed  by  our  seeing  that  in  the  fulfil¬ 
ment  of  this  mission  he  discharges  the  offices,  and  acts 
with  the  authority  of  head.  To  none  else  could  the 
execution  of  a  fresh  advance  in  the  propagation  of  the 
Church  be  committed;  and  so  great,  besides,  were  the 
jealousies  between  the  Jews  and  Samaritans,  that  it 
needed  no  less  than  Peter’s  authority  to  induce  the 
Jewish  converts  to  receive  them  into  the  bond  of  the 
same  society. 

IV.  But  now  we1  draw  nigh  to  the  revelation  of  that 
great  “  mystery  which  in  other  generations  was  not 
known  to  the  sons  of  men — that  the  Gentiles  should  be 
fellow-heirs,  and  of  the  same  body,  and  co-partners  of 
his  promise  in  Christ  Jesus  by  the  Gospel,”  whereby 
was  brought  to  pass  the  prophecy,  “  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  even  to  the  going  down  my  name  is  great 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  in  every  place  there  is  sacrifice, 
and  there  is  offered  to  my  name  a  cleano  blation.”2 
The  hour  was  come  “  when  the  true  adorers  were  to 
adore  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ”  throughout 
every  region  of  the  world  purchased  with  the  blood  of 
1  Passaglia,  p.  174.  2  Eph.  iii  5 ;  Mai.  i  11. 


154  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

the  Son  of  God,  and  of  this  event,  expected  during 
four  thousand  years,  God,  by  an  unexampled  honour, 
disclosed  to  Peter,  and  through  Peter,  the  time  and 
the  manner.  This  greatest  of  purposes,  after  his  own 
ascension,  Christ  left  to  be  revealed  through  him  to 
whom  he  had  committed  the  feeding  of  his  sheep. 

While  Peter1  was  “  passing  through  all” — that  is, 
exercising  his  general  supervision  as  primate  of  the 
Church — God  sent  his  angel  “  in  a  vision  manifestly  ” 
to  “a  certain  man  in  Cesarea  named  Cornelius,  a 
centurion  of  that  which  is  called  the  Italian  band,  a 
religious  man,  and  fearing  God  with  all  his  house, 
giving  much  alms  to  the  people,  and  always  praying  to 
God.”  And  the  angel  says  to  him:  “  Thy  prayers  and 
thine  alms  are  ascended  for  a  memorial  in  the  sight  of 
God,  and  now  send  men  to  Joppa,  and  call  hither  one 
Simon,  who  is  surnamed  Peter:  he  will  tell  thee  what 
thou  must  do.”  Though  God  then  sends  an  angel,  it 
is  left  to  Simon ,  who  is  surnamed  Peter ,  to  declare  his 
counsel,  in  what  affected  the  salvation  of  innumerable 
souls.  Other  Apostles  there  were  to  whom  had  been 
said  equally,  “  Go  ye  into  the  whole  world  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,”  and  “  Ye  shall  be  wit¬ 
nesses  to  me  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea,  and 
Samaria,  and  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  ”; 
and  “  as  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.” 
Yet  putting  aside  all  these,  as  on  so  many  other  oc¬ 
casions,  Peter  is  preferred,  and  that  because  to  him 
alone  was  said,  “  on  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church,” 
and  again,  “  Feed  my  lambs,  be  shepherd  over  my 
sheep.”  Fitting  it  was  that,  when  the  wall  between 

1  Acts  ix  32. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  155 

the  Jews  and  Gentiles  should  be  taken  away,  by  him 
specially  all  should  be  collected  into  one,  on  whom, 
as  the  divinely  laid  foundation,  all  were  to  rest. 
Fitting,  again,  that  the  Lord’s  prdphecy,  “  Other  sheep 
I  have  which  are  not  of  this  fold;  those  also  I  must 
bring;  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice;  and  there  shall 
be  one  fold  and  one  shepherd,”  should  be  fulfilled 
chiefly  by  his  ministry  to  whom  the  Lord  had  com¬ 
mitted  his  own  office  of  universal  visible  pastor.  For 
the  Church,  in  her  very  birth,  and  in  the  whole  pro¬ 
cess  of  her  growth,  bore  this  upon  her  forehead,  that 
universality  as  well  as  unity  belonged  substantially  to 
Peter,  and  that.it  was  no  less  his  function  to  gather  up 
all  nations  into  the  mould  of  unity  by  his  ministration 
as  the  one  chief  shepherd,  than  to  embrace  them  all 
in  the  wide  circuit  of  his  love.  Therefore  it  is  a 
marvellous  agreement  in  which  the  institution  of  the 
Primacy  has  a  corresponding  execution;  and  as  the 
latter  confirms  the  former,  so  from  the  former  you 
might  anticipate  the  latter  before  it  was  recorded  in 
the  sacred  history. 

But  in  the  meantime,  while  the  messengers  of 
Cornelius  were  approaching  the  house  in  which  Peter 
was  a  guest,  “  there  came  upon  him  an  ecstasy  of  mind, 
and  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  and  a  certain  vessel 
descending,  as  it  were  a  great  linen  sheet  let  down 
by  the  four  corners  from  heaven  to  the  earth,  wherein 
were  all  manner  of  four-footed  beasts,  and  creeping 
things  of  the  earth,  and  fowls  of  the  air.”  While  Peter 
is  fixed  in  contemplation,  “  there  came  a  voice  to  him, 
Arise,  Peter,  kill  and  eat,”  that  he  might  understand 
how  “  by  his  preaching  he  was  to  make  a  sacrifice  to 


156  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

the  Lord  of  those  who  were  represented  by  these 
animals,  bringing  them  into  the  divine  service  through 
the  mysteries  of  the  Lord’s  passion.”1  And  Peter,  not 
yet  understanding,  replies,  “  Far  be  it  from  me,  for  I 
never  did  eat  anything  that  is  common  or  unclean.” 
Then  the  heavenly  “  voice  spoke  to  him  again  the 
second  time,  That  which  God  hath  cleansed,  do  not 
thou  call  common.  And  this  having  been  done  thrice, 
presently  the  vessel  was  taken  up  into  heaven.” 

Here  three  things  are  set  forth :  first,  that  as  the  ark 
of  Noe  contained  all  sorts  of  animals,  clean  and  un¬ 
clean,  so  the  fold  of  Christ  was  to  gather  from  Jews 
and  Greeks  and  barbarians  “  a  great  multitude,  which 
no  man  could  number,  of  all  nations  and  tribes  and 
peoples  and  tongues  ”;2  secondly,  that  the  blessings 
of  Christ  concerned  all  who  did  not  reject  the  proffered 
grace;  thirdly,  that  the  elaborate  system  of  Mosaic 
ordinances  concerning  meats,  rites,  and  ceremonies, 
had  fallen  to  the  ground.  But  to  whom  is  disclosed, 
first  and  immediately,  this  whole  dispensation  of  the 
first  principles  on  which  the  Church  was  to  be  pro¬ 
pagated  ?  To  none  other  than  Peter,  “To  me  hath 
God  shown  to  call  no  man  common  or  unclean.”  Now, 
the  undoubted  knowledge  of  this  dispensation  must 
appear  of  the  greatest  moment,  whether  in  itself,  or 
as  concerns  the  Jews,  of  whom  the  earliest  Church 
consisted,  or  the  Apostles,  by  whose  ministry  it  was 
to  be  extended.  And  yet,  by  that  providence  which 
is  ever  over  his  Church,  the  wisdom  of  God  so  ruled 
it  that  through  Peter  alone  the  Apostles  should  be 
taught  when  they  were  first  to  approach  the  Gentiles, 

1  Bede  on  this  text.  2  Apoc.  vii  9. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  157 

and  discharge  their  office  of  witnesses  before  all  nations 
without  distinction.  And  that  because  he  had  made 
Peter  “  the  greater  one  ”  and  “  the  leader  ”  of  all,  and 
put  him  in  his  own  place,  and  constituted  him  supreme 
teacher  in  these  words,  “  Confirm  thy  brethren.’ * 
Thus  Epiphanius,1  in  the  fourth  century,  says  that  the 
charge  of  bringing  the  Gentiles  into  the  Church  was 
laid  upon  all  the  Apostles,  “  but  most  of  all  on  holy 
Peter.”  Why  this  most  of  all?  Because,  while  he 
had  heard  with  the  rest,  “  Make  disciples  of  all  nations,” 
he  had  singly  and  peculiarly  received  the  charge  of 
the  whole  fold,  and  of  the  Apostles  as  part  of  it. 

But  Peter,  still  pondering  on  the  vision,  hears  a 
fresh  voice  from  the  Spirit,  “  Behold,  three  men  seek 
thee.  Arise,  therefore,  get  thee  down,  and  go  with 
them,  doubting  nothing,  for  I  have  sent  them.”  He 
accompanies  the  messengers  and  finds  Cornelius,  “  his 
kinsmen  and  his  special  friends.”  He  asks  why  they 
have  sent  for  him,  whereupon  Cornelius  informs  him 
of  what  had  passed,  and  concludes,  “Now  therefore 
all  we  are  present  in  thy  sight,  to  hear  all  things  what¬ 
soever  are  commanded  thee  by  the  Lord.”  Peter  in 
reply  sets  forth  to  them  the  heads  of  Christian  doctrine, 
and  as  he  comes  to  the  words  “  to  him  all  the  prophets 
gave  testimony,  that  by  his  name  all  receive  remission 
of  sins,  who  believe  in  him,”  “  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
upon  all  them  that  heard  the  word  ”  of  life  and  truth 
from  his  lips.  And  the  Jewish  Christians  who  were 
with  him,  being  astonished  at  this  reception  of  Gentiles 
into  the  Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit’s  visible  descent, 
Peter  cries,  “  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these 

1  Haer.  28,  s.  3. 


158  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?”  “  Words,”  says  St  Chrysos¬ 

tom,1  “  of  one  almost  assaulting  any  that  would  forbid, 
and  say  that  should  not  be,”  and  so  “he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
for  Peter  also,  like  his  Lord,2  preached  in  person,  but 
baptized  by  the  hands  of  others. 

Are  not  then  the  prerogatives  of  Peter  written 
legibly  on  this  whole  narration  ?  First,  among  all  the 
Apostles  he  alone  is  chosen  to  consecrate  to  God  the 
first-fruits  of  the  Gentiles.  Again,  through  him,  as  the 
teacher  of  all,  God  makes  known  to  the  Apostles  them¬ 
selves  when  the  door  was  to  be  opened  to  the  Gentiles. 
Thirdly,  without  advising  with  the  rest,  he  enlarges 
the  fold  of  Christ,  which  in  Christ’s  place  he  ruled, 
with  the  accession  of  the  Gentiles.  Fourthly,  the 
building  of  the  Church  is  thus  referred  to  him  alone. 
Further,  he  gathers  up  to  himself  the  Church  which 
is  made  out  of  Jews,  Samaritans,  and  Gentiles:  as  the 
foundation  he  sustains  the  whole;  and  when  con¬ 
structed,  he  binds  it  together.  Lastly,  Luke,  without 
having  recorded  a  single  speech  of  any  other  Apostle, 
has  given  five  of  Peter,  thus  showing  that  Peter’s  words, 
as  well  as  his  actions,  had  a  higher  importance  than 
theirs  in  the  history  of  the  Church’s  birth  and  growth; 
for,  indeed,  in  the  history  of  the  head  that  of  the  body 
is  included. 

On  Peter’s3  return  to  Jerusalem,  “  the  Apostles  and 
brethren  who  were  in  Judea,  having  heard  that  the 
Gentiles  also  had  received  the  word  of  God,”4  “  they 

1  Horn.  24  in  Acta,  n.  1.  2  John  iv  2. 

3  Passaglia,  p.  181.  4  Acts  xi  1-4. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  159 

that  were  of  the  circumcision  contended  with  him,” 
because  he  had  “  gone  in  to  men  uncircumcised,  and 
ate  with  them.”  Hereupon  Peter  set  forth  to  them 
the  whole  series  of  events,  upon  which  “  they  held 
their  peace  and  glorified  God,  saying,  God  then  has 
also  to  the  Gentiles  given  repentance  unto  life.”  Now, 
some  in  late  times  have  attempted  to  derogate  from 
Peter’s  authority  on  the  strength  of  this  incident.  On 
the  other  hand,  St  Chrysostom,  not  satisfied  with 
setting  forth  Peter’s  rank,  and  assigning  his  whole 
apology  to  a  most  gracious  condescension,  continues, 
“  See  how  he  defends  himself,  and  will  not  use  his 
dignity  as  the  Teacher,  for  he  knew  that  the  more  gently 
he  spoke  with  them,  the  surer  he  was  to  win  them.”1 
And  what  expression  can  signify  Peter’s  rank  more 
markedly  than  the  Teacher?  And  Gregory  the  Great 
sets  forth  Peter’s  distinctions,  how  he  alone  had  re¬ 
ceived  the  keys,  walked  on  the  waters,  healed  with  his 
shadow,  killed  with  his  word,  and  raised  the  dead 
by  his  prayer.  Then,  he  continues,  “  and  because 
warned  by  the  Spirit,  he  had  gone  in  to  Cornelius, 
a  Gentile,  a  question  was  raised  against  him  by  the 
faithful,  as  to  wherefore  he  had  gone  in  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  eaten  with  them,  and  received  them  in  baptism. 
And  yet  the  same  first  of  the  Apostles,  filled  with  so 
great  a  grace  of  gifts,  supported  by  so  great  a  power  of 
miracles,  answers  the  complaint  of  the  faithful  by  an 
appeal  not  to  authority  but  to  reason.  ...  For  if, 
when  blamed  by  the  faithful,  he  had  considered  the 
authority  which  he  held  in  holy  Church,  he  might  have 
answered,  that  the  sheep  entrusted  to  the  shepherd 

1  In  Acta,  Horn.  24,  n.  2. 


160  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

should  not  venture  to  censure  him.  But  if,  in  the 
complaint  of  the  faithful,  he  had  said  anything  of  his 
own  power,  he  would  not  have  been  the  teacher  of 
meekness.  Therefore  he  quieted  them  with  humble 
reason,  and  in  the  matter  where  he  was  blamed  even 
cited  witnesses.  If,  therefore,  the  Pastor  of  the  Church , 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles ,  having  a  singular  power  to 
do  signs  and  miracles,  did  not  disdain,  when  he  was 
censured,  humbly  to  render  account,  how  much  more 
ought  we  sinners,  when  blamed  for  anything,  to  disarm 
our  censurers  by  a  humble  defence.”1 

Here  it  occurs  to  observe  with  what  different  eyes 
Holy  Scripture  may  be  read,  for  just  where  persons 
determined  to  deny  Peter’s  authority  find  an  excuse 
for  their  foregone  conclusion,  the  Fathers  draw 
arguments  to  praise  the  moderation  with  which  he 
exercised  that  same  superior  authority. 

V.  But2  founded  as  we  have  seen  the  Church  to 
have  hitherto  been,  and  at  each  step  of  its  course 
advanced,  mainly  by  the  authority  of  Peter,  it  could  not 
hope  to  remain  in  a  vigorous  and  united  state  without 
the  continual  exercise  of  judicial  and  legislative  power, 
and  diligent  inspection .  Nor  is  there,  in  fact,  one  of 
these  which  Peter  did  not  exercise,  and  that  in  a 
manner  to  indicate  the  ruler  set  over  all.  For  as  to 
the  judicial  power,  do  we  not  hear  him  saying,  “  Tell3 
me  whether  you  sold  the  land  for  so  much  and 
“  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan  tempted  thy  heart,  that 
thou  shouldst  lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  fraud  keep 
part  of  the  price  of  the  land  ?  Whilst  it  remained 
did  it  not  remain  to  thee  ?  And  after  it  was  sold, 
1  Lib.  9,  Ep.  39.  2  Passaglia,  p.  188.  3  Acts  v  8,  3. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  161 

was  it  not  in  thy  power  ?  Why  hast  thou  conceived 
this  thing  in  thy  heart  ?  Thou  hast  not  lied  to  men 
but  to  God.”  And  presently  the  sentence  comes  forth 
from  him  who  binds  in  heaven  as  well  as  on  earth. 
“  Behold  the  feet  of  them  who  have  buried  thy  husband 
are  at  the  door,  and  they  shall  carry  thee  out.”  Here, 
then,  we  have  Peter,  in  the  midst  of  the  Apostles,  yet 
acting  singly  as  the  supreme  judge,  and  defender  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  on  which  St  Chrysostom  says, 
“  For  Peter  was  terrible,  punishing  and  convicting  the 
thoughts,  to  whom  they  adhered  the  more  both  for  the 
sign,  and  his  first  speech,  and  his  second,  and  his  third. 
For  he  it  was  who  did  the  first  sign,  and  the  second, 
and  the  present,  which  seems  to  me  double,  one  to 
convict  the  thoughts,  and  another  to  kill  with  his  com¬ 
mand.”  Then,  asking  why  nobody  had  announced 
her  husband’s  death  to  Saphira,  “  This  was  fear  of  the 
Teacher,  this  respect  of  the  disciples ;  this  obedience :” 1 
where  he  is  mentioned  not  as  a  teacher,  but  the  supreme 
and  chief  one. 

Yet  though  the  other  Apostles  were  judges,  with 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose,  though  they  were  present, 
and  concerned,  for  “  Ananias  bringing  a  certain  part, 
laid  it  at  the  feet  of  the  Apostles,”  not  of  Peter  only, 
it  was  not  they,  but  Peter,  who  entered  on  the  cause  of 
Ananias  and  Saphira,  passed  sentence,  and  inflicted 
punishment.  Why  did  he  judge  singly  a  cause  which 
was  brought  before  the  common  tribunal  of  the 
Apostles  ?  Because  Peter  was  to  have  the  Primacy  in 
all  things ;  because  from  him  the  model  of  ecclesiastical 
judgements  was  to  be  taken;  because  the  charge  of 

1  In  Acta,  Horn.  12. 


11 


1 62  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

maintaining  ecclesiastical  discipline  belonged  in  chief 
to  him  as  the  head. 

VI.  But  no  less1  markedly  does  Luke  represent 
Peter  as  everywhere  visiting  the  Churches,  providing 
for  them  as  universal  pastor,  and  exercising  herein  the 
administrative  Primacy.  “  The  Churches,”  he  says, 
“  throughout  all  Judea,  and  Galilee,  and  Samaria,  had 
peace,  being  edified  and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the 
Lord,  and  were  mtiltiplied  by  the  consolation  of  the 
Ploly  Ghost.  And  it  came  to  pass  that  Peter ,  as  he 
passed  through ,  visiting  ally  came  to  the  saints  who 
dwelt  at  Lydda.”2  In  illustration  of  this  we  may 
remember  Paul’s  charge  to  Titus:3  “  For  this  cause 
I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  wanting,  and  shouldst  ordain  priests 
in  every  city,  as  I  also  appointed  thee.”  And  again, 
what  Luke  writes  of  Paul  himself:  “  After  some  days 
Paul  said  to  Barnabas,  Let  us  return  and  visit  our 
brethren  in  all  the  cities  wherein  we  have  preached 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  to  see  how  they  do.”4  And 
what  Eusebius,5  from  St  Clement,  relates  of  St  John, 
that  he  visited  with  authority  the  Churches  of  Asia, 
which  he  had  either  founded,  or  specially  attended  to. 
By  these  passages  we  see  the  nature  of  Peter’s  visita¬ 
tion,  that  it  was  pastoral,  and  likewise  the  difference 
between  his  and  these  others,  for  they  were  local ,  but 
his  universal .  Titus  acted  in  Crete,  the  special  sphere 
of  his  labour,  to  which  St  Paul  the  founder  of  that 
Church  had  appointed  him.  Paul  and  Barnabas  pro¬ 
pose  to  visit  “  our  brethren  in  every  city  in  which  we 

1  Passaglia,  p.  190.  2  Acts  ix  31.  3  Titus  i  5. 

4  Acts  xv  36.  5  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  3,  ch.  2. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  163 

have  preached  the  word  of  the  Lord  ”;  St.  John  exerts 
visitatorial  power  over  the  Churches  of  that  province 
wherein  he  dwelt,  and  that  too,  apparently,  when  he 
was  the  sole  survivor  of  the  Apostolic  college,  yet  did 
not  go  into  other  parts.  But  Peter’s  charge  is  oecu¬ 
menical,  and  therefore  his  visitation  universal.  He 
inspects  the  labours  of  others,  as  well  as  his  own. 
For  he  was  not  the  only  Apostle  at  Jerusalem,  nor  had 
he  singly  built  up  all  the  Churches  of  Judea,  Galilee, 
and  Samaria,  yet  he  alone  makes  a  progress  from 
Jerusalem  to  all  these  Churches.  Though  not  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  over  which  the  Apostle  James 
presides,  he  goes  everywhere,  as  “  the  Bishop  of 
Bishops.”1  No  other  reason  coherent  with  Scripture 
can  we  find  for  this  universal  inspection  of  Peter ;  for 
all  the  Apostles  were  indeed  pastors,  but  he  alone  set 
over  the  whole  fold;  he  alone  not  limited,  like  Paul, 
“  to  the  brethren  in  every  city  wherein  he  had 
preached.”  He  differs  from  all  others  as  the  universal 
from  the  particular,  and  so  St  Chrysostom  says  of  him 
in  this  very  passage,  “  Like  a  general  he  went  round 
surveying  the  ranks,  seeing  what  portion  was  well 
massed  together,  what  in  order,  what  needed  his 
presence.  Behold  him  making  his  rounds  in  every 
direction.”2 

VII.  Further,3  we  may  see  the  deference  paid  to 
this  supreme  authority  of  Peter  by  the  Apostles  and 
Ancients  at  Jerusalem,  on  occasion  of  that  severest 
dissension  which  threatened  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
and  kindled  the  greatest  agitation,  the  question  whether 

1  So  called  by  Arnobius,  on  Psalm  cxxxviii. 

2  In  Acta,  Horn.  21,  n.  2.  3  Passaglia,  p.  192. 


164  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Gentile  converts  should  be  bound  to  obey  the  Mosaic 
ritual  law.  For  “  the1  Apostles  and  Ancients  having 
assembled  to  consider  of  this  matter/ ’  after  “  there 
had  been  much  disputing,  Peter,  rising  up,  said  to 
them.”  But  why  does  Peter  first  rise  and  decide  the 
cause  ?  Because  he  was  first  of  the  Apostles,  and  as 
such  supreme  arbiter  in  controversy.  But  consider 
what  he  says:  “  Men  and  brethren,  you  know  that  in 
former  days  God  made  choice  among  us,  that  by  my 
mouth  the  Gentiles  should  hear  the  word  of  the  Gospel, 
and  believe.”  By  my  mouthy  he  appeals  to  their  know¬ 
ledge  of  his  election  by  God  to  the  singular  privilege 
of  receiving  the  Gentiles:  in  virtue  of  that  election  he 
claims  and  exercises  authority.  “  And  God,  who 
knoweth  the  hearts,  gave  testimony,  giving  unto  them 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  unto  us,  and  put  no 
difference  between  us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts 
by  faith.”  God,  therefore,  has  already  decided  this 
controversy,  by  my  ministry,  whom  he  especially  called 
thereunto,  and  by  the  effects  which  he  caused  to 
accompany  it.  Then,  using  words  full  of  force,  being, 
indeed,  very  like  those  in  which  he  had  answered  to 
Ananias  and  Saphira,  he  continues,  “  Now,  therefore, 
why  tempt  you  God,  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the 
disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  have  been 
able  to  bear  ?  But  by  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  be  saved,  in  like  manner 
as  they  also.”  “  How  full  of  power  are  these  words,” 
is  the  comment  of  Chrysostom;2  “  he  says  here  what 
Paul  has  said  at  great  length  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans.”  And  then,  speaking  of  the  heads  of  Paul’s 
1  Acts  xv  6.  2  Horn.  32,  n.  1. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  165 

doctrine,  he  adds,  “  The  seeds  of  all  this  lie  in  Peter’s 
discourse.”  This,  then,  is  a  decision ,  and  given  in  no 
hesitating  manner,  but  with  severe  censure  of  those 
who  maintained  the  opposite,  as  “  tempting  God,” 
words  suitable  for  him  only  to  use  who  had  authority 
over  all.  But  how  did  the  Council  receive  them  ? 
Though  “  there  had  been  much  disputing  before,” 
though  the  keenest  feelings  had  been  excited,  and  the 
point  involved  the  strongest  prepossessions  of  the 
Jewish  converts,  “  all  the  multitude  held  their  peace.” 
They  acquiesced  in  Peter’s  judgement,  and  now  readily 
“  heard  Barnabas  and  Paul  telling  what  great  signs 
and  wonders  God  had  wrought  among  the  Gentiles 
by  them.”  It  follows,  then,  that  on  a  capital  point, 
and  in  the  first  Council  of  the  Church,  Peter  occupied 
a  position  which  befits  only  the  supreme  judge  of  con¬ 
troversies,  so  that  had  we  no  other  evidence  than  this 
place  whereby  to  decide  upon  his  rank  and  office,  his 
pre-eminence  would  be  evident.  “  See,”  says  St 
Chrysostom,  “  he  first  permits  a  discussion  to  arise  in 
the  Church,  and  then  he  speaks.”1 

But  is  this  affected  by  other  persons  likewise  speak¬ 
ing  and  voting,  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  ?  or  by  St  James 
likewise  giving  his  sentence,  as  an  Apostle  ?  or  by  the 
whole  matter  being  settled  by  common  consent  ?  As 
little  as  to  be  head  involves  being  all ;  as  to  preside 
over  the  rest  takes  from  them  the  power  of  deliberation 
and  resolution.  Rather  it  is  the  office  of  the  head 
and  the  president  to  take  the  initiative,  and  point  out 
the  course  which  others  are  to  follow. 

For  those  here  present  were  teachers,  and  had  the 
1  Horn.  32,  tom.  ix,  p.  250. 


t 


166  st  peter:  hisTname  and  his  office 

,lujk 

prerogative  of  hearing  and  judging,  as  well  as  Peter; 
they  were  bound  to  weigh  the  matter  in  controversy 
to  the  best  of  their  power,  and  to  decide  on  it  according 
to  the  proportion  of  faith.  They  stood  to  Peter  in 
a  relation,  not  of  simple  obedience,  as  the  ordinary 
members  of  the  flock,  but  of  judges,  who,  though 
responsible  to  his  superintendence,  yet  are  really 
judges,  pass  sentence,  and  decree  by  inherent  authority. 
It  is  no  part  of  the  idea  of  a  judge,  that  he  should  be 
supreme  and  irresponsible:  this  is  the  special  privilege 
of  the  one  supreme  judge.  Objections  such  as  these, 
therefore,  do  not  take  from  Peter  his  Primacy  and 
quality  of  head,  but  claim  for  Paul,  Barnabas,  James, 
and  other  Apostles,  the  judicial  authority  and  office, 
which  they  undoubtedly  possessed. 

Nor  again,  that  not  Peter  only,  but  all,  passed  the 
decree  in  common,  as  it  is  written:  “  It  seemed  good 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us  and  as  Paul  and 
Timothy  “  delivered  to  the  cities  the  decrees  to  keep 
that  were  decreed  by  the  Apostles  and  Ancients.”1 
For  a  decree  made  in  common  by  many  shows  not  an 
equality  of  power  in  each,  but  a  competent  authority 
to  join  in  that  decree.  Such  acts  proceed,  not  only 
from  equal,  but  from  unequal  assemblies.  A  question, 
therefore,  terminated  by  common  decision,  and  laws 
established  by  common  consent,  do  indeed  prove  a 
power  to  deliberate  and  decree  common  to  all  partici¬ 
pating,  but  do  not  prove  that  all  and  every  of  the 
judges  were  equal  in  their  privileges,  for  who 
gives  to  the  Ancients  the  same  authority  as  to  the 
Apostles  ? 


1  Acts  xv  28;  xvi  4. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  167 

This  inequality  is  elsewhere  established,  and  rests 
on  its  own  proof,  but  bearing  it  in  mind,  we  shall  see 
that  Peter  is  the  first  and  chief  author  of  this  common 
decree,  and  that  laws  passed  by  common  consent  depend 
on  him  primarily  as  head.  Most  unsuspicious  wit¬ 
nesses  of  this  are  the  ancient  writers,  and  this  is  the 
very  conclusion  which  they  drew  from  the  account 
of  this  Council.  Thus,  Tertullian,  in  the  second 
century,  speaking  of  Peter’s  singular  prerogatives,  says, 
“  On  him  the  Church  was  built — that  is,  through  him; 
it  was  he  who  handled  the  key.  This  is  it.  ‘Ye  men 
of  Israel,  hear  these  words.  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man 
approved  of  God  among  you,’  etc.  He,  too,  first  by 
Christian  baptism  opened  the  approach  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom,  by  which  offences,  heretofore  bound,  are 
loosed,  and  those  not  loosed  are  bound,  according  to 
true  salvation.  And  Ananias  he  bound  with  the  chain 
of  death :  and  him  that  was  weak  in  his  feet  he  delivered 
from  his  disease.  But  likewise,  in  that  discussion  as 
to  maintaining  the  law,  Peter,  first  of  all,  instinct  with 
the  Spirit,  and  preluding  with  the  vocation  of  the 
Gentiles,  says,  “  And  now  why  tempt  ye  the  Lord 
by  imposing  a  yoke  on  the  brethren,  which  neither  we 
nor  our  fathers  have  been  able  to  bear  ?  But  by  the 
grace  of  Christ  we  believe  that  we  shall  be  saved,  as 
also  they.*  This  sentence  both  loosed  what  was  given 
up  of  the  law  and  kept  binding  what  was  reserved A1 
As  clearly,  St  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  writes, 
that  Peter  “  used  his  wonted  freedom,  and  that  the 
Apostle  James  followed  his  sentence ,  and  all  the  Ancients 
at  once  acceded  to  it ,  and  that  the  decree  zvas  drawn  up  on 

1  De  Pudicitia,  c.  21. 


1 68  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

his  wording  ”l  A  little  later  Theodoret  wrote  to 
St  Leo,  thus:  “  If  Paul,  the  preacher  of  the  truth,  the 
trumpet  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  hastened  to  the  great  Peter, 
to  carry  from  him  the  solution  to  those  at  Antioch,  at 
issue  about  living  under  the  law;  much  more  do  we, 
poor  and  humble,  run  to  your  Apostolic  throne,  to  re¬ 
ceive  from  you  healing  for  the  wounds  of  the  Churches. 5  ’ 2 
Why  does  he  here  call  Peter  the  great ,  or  say  that  Paul 
hastened  to  him  for  solution  of  a  grave  contention  ? 
Did  not  Paul  go  to  all  the  Apostles  ?  But  Peter  was 
the  head  among  them,  and  had  a  power  in  chief — a 
power  above  the  rest,  a  “  more  special  ”  power — of 
binding  and  loosing. 

VIII.  One  other3  instance  there  is  of  Peter’s  superior 
dignity,  and  therefore  importance,  in  the  Apostolic 
college,  which  if,  perhaps,  less  direct  than  some  of  the 
foregoing,  is  even  more  persuasive.  For  there  was  an 
Apostle  associated,  as  we  have  seen,  by  our  Lord  with 
Peter  and  John  in  several  favours  not  granted  to  the 
rest;  one  who  with  John  received  from  him  the  name  of 
Boanerges;  the  elder  brother  of  John,  who  with  him 
had  once  asked  to  sit  on  the  Lord’s  right  hand  and  on 
his  left  in  his  kingdom.  Now,  Luke  is  led  in  the 
course  of  his  narrative  to  mention  the  martyrdom  of 
this  great  and  favoured  Apostle;  the  first  likewise  of  the 
Apostolic  choir  who  drank,  as  he  had  promised,  of  his 
Lord’s  chalice,  and  sealed  his  labours  and  trials  with  his 
blood.  The  occasion  was  a  great  and  striking  one. 
It  is  thus  recorded  by  Luke:  “  And  at  the  same  time 

1  St  Jerome,  Ep.  75,  inter  Augustinianas,  tom.  ii,  p.  171. 

2  Theodoret,  Ep.  113,  tom.  iii,  p.  984. 

3  Passaglia,  p.  197. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  169 

Herod  the  King  stretched  forth  his  hands  to  afflict 
some  of  the  Church.  And  he  killed  James,  the  brother 
of  John,  with  the  sword.”  This  is  the  first  and  the 
last  time  that  he  is  mentioned  by  himself  in  Luke’s 
inspired  history  of  the  universal  Church.  Great  as 
he  was,  so  eminently  favoured  by  his  Lord,  the  elder 
brother  of  John,  nothing  is  said  of  the  Church’s  anxiety 
for  his  danger,  her  prayers  for  his  release,  her  sorrow 
at  his  loss,  or  her  exultation  at  his  triumph  by  witness¬ 
ing  unto  blood.  He  passed  to  his  throne  in  heaven 
with  this  short  record.  The  more  emphatic  is  the 
contrast  following:  “  And  seeing  that  it  pleased  the 
Jews,  he  proceeded  to  take  up  Peter  also.  Now  it  was 
in  the  days  of  the  azymes.  And  when  he  had  appre¬ 
hended  him,  he  cast  him  into  prison,  delivering  him 
to  four  files  of  soldiers  to  be  kept,  intending  after  the 
pasch  to  bring  him  forth  to  the  people.  Peter  there¬ 
fore  was  kept  in  prison.  But  prayer  was  made  without 
ceasing  by  the  Church  unto  God  for  him”  That  is,  by 
the  instinct  of  self-preservation  she  prayed  for  her 
head.  A  few  years  later  another  Apostle,  after 
glorious  labours  by  land  and  sea,  and  missions  of  un¬ 
rivalled  success,  was  seized  and  imprisoned  in  this 
same  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  danger  of  his  life.  But 
we  do  not  hear  of  prayers  being  offered  up  without 
ceasing  even  for  Paul,  the  doctor  of  the  nations.  The 
Church’s  safety  was  not  bound  up  with  his,  any  more 
than  with  that  of  James,  and  therefore  not  even  of  the 
great  preacher  “  in  labours  more  abundant  than  all,” 
are  we  told  that  in  the  hour  of  danger  “  prayer  was 
made  without  ceasing  by  the  Church  unto  God  for  him.” 
James  and  Paul  were  most  distinguished  members ,  but 


170  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Peter  was  more.  This  was  an  honour  reserved  for 
the  head  alone,  as  the  life  of  the  head  was  peculiarly 
precious  to  the  whole  body.  Thus  St  Chrysostom 
explains  it:  “  The  prayer  is  a  proof  of  affection:  they 
all  sought  for  a  Father,  a  kind  Father.”1  And  then 
Luke  proceeds  to  give  at  length  Peter’s  delivery  out 
of  prison  by  the  angel,  and  his  departure  in  safety  to 
another  place.  But  there  is  no  other  solution  of  such 
a  difference  in  recording  what  happened  alike  to  James, 
to  Peter,  and  to  Paul,  but  that  Peter  held  the  place  of 
father  in  the  Lord’s  family,  of  commander  in  his  army, 
of  steward  in  his  household,  delivering  to  each  of  his 
servants  their  measure  of  wheat  in  due  season. 

The  result,2  then,  of  our  particular  inquiry  in  the 
Acts  is  to  demonstrate  two  things,  that  Peter  dis¬ 
charged  the  office  of  Father  and  Head  in  the  Lord’s 
family,  and  that  the  Church  received  and  admitted  him 
when  so  acting,  with  a  consciousness  that  such  was  the 
will  of  Christ. 

Now,  this  office  did  not  consist  in  “  lording  it  ”  over 
his  brethren,  in  assuming  high  titles,  and  interfering 
with  the  ministry  of  others  when  exercised  in  its  due 
course,  in  rejecting  their  assistance,  or  impeding  the 
unanimous  exercise  of  their  counsel.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Lord  had  before  prescribed  that  “  the  greater  ” 
among  them  should  be  as  the  younger,  and  “  the 
leader  ”  as  he  that  ministers,  proposing  to  them  him¬ 
self  as  the  great  model,  who  had  exercised  the  highest 
power  with  the  utmost  gentleness,  and,  being  “  the 
Lord,”  had  become  “  the  servant  of  all.”  What,  then, 
did  this  office  of  Primate  consist  in  ?  We  must  say 

1  In  Acta,  Horn.  26,  n.  2.  2  Passaglia,  p.  198. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  171 

that  Peter  was  undoubtedly  such,  if  he  constantly 
exercised  the  power  of  a  head  in  building  up  the  Church, 
in  maintaining  discipline,  in  reconciling  dissensions, 
and  in  general  administration.  Now,  it  would  be 
doing  Peter  wrong  to  suppose  that  he  usurped  as 
peculiar  to  himself  what  equally  belonged  to  all  the 
Apostles;  or  that,  having  received  the  special  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  did  not  fulfil  his  own  advice  to 
others,  “  not  to  lord  it  over  the  clergy,  but  to  be  made 
a  pattern  of  the  flock.”1  And  the  four  points  just 
mentioned  may  be  reduced  to  a  triple  authority,  a 
Primacy  magisterial ,  judicial ,  and  legislative .  Let  us 
take  in  at  one  glance  what  has  been  said  of  Peter  in 
regard  to  each  of  these. 

As  to  the  magisterial ,  or  power  of  authoritative 
teaching  and  general  administration,  Peter  is  con¬ 
stantly  taking  the  lead,  he  is  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
Apostles:  he  alone,  or  he  first,  by  teaching  plants  the 
Churches;  he  alone,  or  he  in  chief,  completes  them 
when  planted.  He  it  is  who  by  divine  revelation  given 
to  himself  discloses  to  the  rest  the  dispensation  of 
God;  and  he  in  words  full  of  power  sets  forth  to  these 
assembled  in  council  the  course  which  they  are  to 
pursue. 

As  to  the  judicial ,  none  other  judgements  are  found 
in  that  portion  of  the  Acts  which  contains  the  history 
of  the  whole  Church,  save  those  of  which  he  was  either 
the  sole  or  the  chief  author.  Alone  he  took  cognizance 
of  Ananias  and  Saphira,  and  alone  he  punished  them. 
And  Simon  he  censured  in  chief,  and  excommuni¬ 
cated. 


1  1  Pet.  v  3. 


172  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

As  to  the  legislative ,  Peter  alone  promulgated  the 
law  as  to  receiving  the  Gentiles;  alone  he  prescribed 
that  for  abrogating  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  ordinances. 
He  was  the  chief  author  of  the  decree  which  expressed 
in  terms  his  own  previous  act,  and  was  put  forth  in 
common  by  the  Apostles  and  Ancients.1 

Again,  compare  the  institution  of  the  Primacy  with 
its  exercise.  Its  institution  consisted  in  three  things: 
(1)  That  Peter  was  named  by  Christ  the  foundation 
of  the  Church,  with  whom  its  whole  fabric  was  most 
intimately  to  cohere,  and  from  whom  it  should  derive 
visible  unity  and  impregnable  strength;  (2)  that  the 
authority  of  universal  pastor,  and  the  care  of  the  whole 
fold,  was  committed  to  him;  (3)  that  to  him  belonged 
the  confirmation  of  his  brethren,  and  a  power  of  the 
keys  to  which  all  were  subject.  Now  consider  the 
execution. 

As  foundation  of  the  Church,  he  gathers  up  to  him¬ 
self  congregations  from  the  Jews,  the  Samaritans,  and 
the  Gentiles. 

As  universal  pastor,  he  collects  from  these  three  the 
flock,  nourishes,  defends,  inspects  it,  and  fills  up  one 
place  of  highest  rank  in  the  ministry  forfeited  by  the 
traitor. 

As  confirmer  of  the  brethren,  he  disclosed  to  them 
the  heavenly  vision  signifying  the  universal  calling  of 
the  Gentiles  and  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
He  acts  in  the  Lord’s  household  as  the  bearer  of  the 
keys,  going  to  all  parts,  defending  and  inspecting  all. 
By  himself  he  binds  and  looses,  calling  Ananias  and 

1  “  Princeps  hujus  fuit  decreti,”  says  St  Jerome  to  St 
Augustine,  Ep.  75,  n.  8,  inter  Augustinianas. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  173 

Saphira  to  his  tribunal,  and  excommunicating  the 
first  heretic. 

So  exactly,  then,  do  the  institution  of  the  Primacy 
and  the  acts  of  Peter  fit  into  each  other,  that  from  the 
former  you  may  predict  the  latter,  and  from  the  latter 
prove  the  former.  They  are  like  cause  and  effect,  or 
an  a  priori  and  an  a  posteriori  argument.  They  are  a 
reciprocal  confirmation  to  each  other;  just  as  if  by  time 
you  calculate  the  sun’s  rising,  and  see  the  diffusion 
of  his  light,  from  his  having  risen  you  infer  his  light, 
and  from  his  light  conclude  that  he  has  risen. 

Nor  in  the  Apostolic  Church  does  any  one  appear 
to  resist  or  question  this  office  of  Peter.  Rather  upon 
him  all  eyes  are  fixed,  for  him  all  are  anxious;  no 
Abiram  rises  up  against  him  with  the  words  of  re¬ 
bellion:  “  Thou  takest  too  much  upon  thee,  seeing  all 
the  congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  the 
Lord  is  among  them:  wherefore  then  liftest  thou  up 
thyself  above  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  P”1  No 
Aaron  in  a  moment  of  delusion  cries,  “  Did  the  Lord 
speak  by  Moses  only  ?  Hath  he  not  spoken  also 
by  us  ?” 

Yet  Peter  acts  not  like  one  out  of  a  number,  and 
occasions  of  contention  are  not  wanting,  strong  pre¬ 
possessions  and  keen  feelings.2  He  is  everywhere; 
his  pre-eminence  and  his  control  are  universal :  he  can 
act  with  severity,  and  there  are  some  impatient  even 
of  a  just  control.  When  Ananias  and  Saphira  fell 
dead  at  his  feet,  none  murmured.  When  he  exclaimed, 
in  full  council,  “  Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  you 
God  ?”  the  whole  multitude  was  silent.  When  he 
1  Num.  xvi  3 ;  xii  2.  2  Acts  vi  1 ;  xv  2;  xi  2. 


174  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

explained  the  reception  of  the  Gentiles,  those  who  had 
murmured  “  held  their  peace,  and  glorified  God.”1 

But  had  Peter  not  possessed,  by  divine  commission, 
the  authority  which  he  exercised,  it  is  clear,  from  the 
conduct  of  Paul,  that  he  would  have  met  with  op¬ 
position  from  each  in  proportion  of  his  advance  in 
Christian  perfection.  Paul’s  censure  to  his  indulgence 
to  the  prejudices  of  the  circumcision,  proceeding  as  it 
did  from  charity,  shows  this.  But  what  would  Paul, 
and  what  would  the  other  Apostles  have  done,  had 
they  seen  Peter  perpetually  taking  the  lead,  and 
exercising  the  power  of  a  head,  without  any  special 
title  thereto  ?  Would  they  not  have  resisted  him.  to 
the  face  and  before  all,  and  declared  that  there  was 
no  difference  of  authority  between  them  ?  Yet  not 
a  trace  of  such  resistance  appears,  while  on  number¬ 
less  occasions  the  Apostles,  and  the  whole  assembly 
of  the  faithful,  yield  to  him  the  Primacy,  a  sign  truly 
that  they  recognized  in  him  one  who  had  received 
the  place  of  Christ  as  visible  head  among  them. 

Infinite  indeed  is  the  distance  between  Christ  and 
Peter,  as  to  the  headship  of  mystical  influx  and  the 
source  of  grace.  Neither  he  nor  any  creature  has  part 
with  Christ  as  to  this  latter,  of  which  Paul  writes, 
44  that  God  had  set  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  given 
him  to  be  head  over  all  to  the  Church,  which  is  his 
body,  the  fulness  of  him  who  filleth  all  in  all.”  Again, 
“  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife,  as  Christ  is  the 
head  of  the  Church,  and  he  is  the  Saviour  of  his  body  ” : 
and  all  this  “  to  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  Church, 
not  having  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing.”2  In 
1  Acts  xi  18.  2  Eph.  i  22;  iv  15;  v  23,  27. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  175 

this  sense  headship  belongs  to  Christ,  not  only  first 
and  chiefly,  but  absolutely  and  solely.  As  to  the 
headship  of  external  government  and  visible  unity, 
to  this  Christ  himself  has  in  a  measure  associated 
Peter  by  saying  to  him  specially,  “  Feed  my  sheep — 
follow  thou  me.” 

And  observe  how  that  divine  injunction  was  ful¬ 
filled.  For  as,  following  our  Lord  with  loving  gaze 
through  the  Gospels,  we  see  every  object  grouped 
about  that  heavenly  figure  of  his ;  as  our  eyes  rest  ever 
upon  him  in  the  synagogue,  in  the  market-place,  among 
the  crowd,  before  the  Pharisees,  the  elders,  the  chief 
priests,  healing  the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  supporting 
and  animating  his  disciples — so  turning  to  the  Acts  we 
see  a  human  copy  indeed  of  that  divine  portrait,  but 
still  one  wrought  by  the  Holy  Spirit  out  of  our  re¬ 
deemed  flesh  and  blood.  We  see  the  fervent  Apostle 
treading  in  his  Master’s  steps,  the  centre  and  the 
support  of  his  brethren,  the  first  before  the  Council 
and  before  the  people,  ready  with  his  words  and  his 
deeds,  uttering  to  the  dead,  as  the  echo  of  his  Lord, 
“  Arise,”  and  healing  the  sick  with  his  shadow.  With 
reason,  then,  do  the  inspired  writers  use  of  Peter  and 
of  Christ  similar  forms  of  speech,  and  as  they  write, 
“  Jesus  and  his  disciples,”  “  there  went  with  him  his 
disciples,”  “  there  he  abode  with  his  disciples,”  so 
they  write,  “  Peter  standing  up  with  the  Eleven,” 
“  they  said  to  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,” 
“  Peter  and  the  Apostles  answering.”  What,  above 
all,  is  remarkable  is  to  observe  the  same  proportion 
between  the  figure  of  Peter  and  the  Apostles  in  the 
first  twelve  chapters  of  the  Acts,  as  between  the  figure 


176  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

of  our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  in  the  Gospel.  Such 
was  the  power  and  the  will  of  the  Divine  Master  when 
he  said,  “  Feed  my  sheep;  follow  thou  me.”  Such 
the  truth  of  the  disciple,  answering,  “  Lord,  thou 
knowest  all  things,  thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee.” 


CHAPTER  VI 


TESTIMONY  OF  ST  PAUL  TO  ST  PETER’S 

PRIMACY 

In  leaving  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  we  quit  those 
writings  in  which  we  should  expect,  beforehand,  that 
divine  government  to  be  set  forth,  which  it  pleased  our 
Lord  to  establish  for  his  Church.  In  exact  accordance 
with  such  expectation  we  have  seen  the  institution 
of  the  Apostolic  college,  and  of  St  Peter’s  Primacy 
over  it,  described  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  history  in 
the  Acts  of  its  execution  and  practical  working.  Both 
institution  and  execution  have  been  complete  in  their 
parts,  and  wonderfully  harmonious  with  each  other. 
But  in  the  other  inspired  writings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  comprising  the  letters  of  various  Apostles,  and 
specially  St  Paul,  we  had  no  reason  to  anticipate  any 
detailed  mention  of  Church  government.  The 
fourteen  Epistles  of  St  Paul  were  written  incidentally 
on  different  subjects,  no  one  of  them  leading  him  to 
set  forth,  with  any  exact  specification,  that  divine 
hierarchy  under  which  it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
that  his  Church  should  grow  up.  Moreover,  it  so 
happened  that1  the  circumstances  of  St  Paul’s  calling 
to  be  an  Apostle,  and  the  opposition  which  he  some¬ 
times  met  with  from  those  attached  to  Jewish  usages, 
caused  him  to  be  a  great  defender  of  the  Apostolic 

1  Passaglia,  p.  206. 

177 


12 


178  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

dignity,  as  bestowed  upon  himself,  and  continually 
to  assert  that  he  received  it  not  of  men,  but  of  God. 
Had  there,  then,  been  no  recognition  at  all  of  St  Peter’s 
superior  rank  in  the  Apostolic  college  to  be  found 
in  his  writings,  it  would  not  have  caused  surprise  to 
those  who  consider  the  above  reasons.  And  pro- 
portionably  strong  and  effective  is  the  recognition  of 
that  rank,  which,  though  incidental,  does  occur,  and 
that  several  times.  If,  then,  St  Paul,  being  so  cir¬ 
cumstanced,  selected  expressions  which  seem  to 
indicate  a  distinction  of  dignity  between  the  Apostles 
and  St  Peter,  they  claim  a  special  attention,  and  carry 
a  double  force.  Now,  on  putting  these  together,  we 
shall  find  that  they  show  not  merely  a  distinction  of 
dignity,  but  a  superior  authority  in  Peter. 

The  first  are  four  several  passages  in  the  first  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  in  all  of  which  St  Peter  holds  the 
higher  place,  and  in  two  is  moreover  mentioned  singly, 
whilst  the  rest  are  mentioned  only  in  mass.  These 
are  the  following:  “  Now  this  I  say,  that  every  one  of 
you  saith,  I  indeed  am  of  Paul;  and  I  of  Apollo;  and  I 
of  Cephas;  and  I  of  Christ.”  Again:  “  All  things  are 
yours,  whether  it  be  Paul,  or  Apollo,  or  Cephas,  or 
the  world,  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present  or  things 
to  come,  for  all  are  yours,  and  you  are  Christ’s,  and 
Christ  is  God’s.”  Again:  “  Have  we  not  power  to 
carry  about  a  woman,  a  sister,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and  Cephas  ?” 
And  once  more:  “  That  he  was  seen  by  Cephas,  and 
after  that  by  the  Eleven.”1  First,  we  may  remark  that 
the  place  of  dignity  in  a  sentence  varies2  according  to 
1  1  Cor.  i  12;  iii  22 ;  ix  5  ;  xv  5.  2  Passaglia,  pp.  124-126. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  179 

its  nature:  if  it  descends,  such  place  is  the  first;  but  if 
it  ascends,  it  is  the  farthest  point  from  the  first.  Now 
in  the  first  instance  the  discourse  ascends,  for  what 
can  be  plainer  than  that  it  terminates  in  Christ,  as 
in  the  supreme  point  ?  “  Every  one  of  you  saith,  I 

indeed  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollo,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and 
I  of  Christ;”  so  St  Chrysostom  observes,  “  It  was  not 
to  prefer  himself  before  Peter  that  he  set  him  last, 
but  to  prefer  Peter  even  greatly  before  himself.  For 
he  speaks  in  the  ascending  scale:”  and  Theodoret, 
“  They  called  themselves  from  different  teachers ;  now 
he  mentioned  his  own  name  and  that  of  Apollo;  but 
he  adds  also  the  name  of  the  chief  of  the  Apostles.”1 
As  plain  is  this  in  the  second  instance,  where  St  Paul, 
developing  his  thought,  “  all  things  are  yours,”  adds, 
“  whether  Paul,  or  Apollo,  or  Cephas,”  or  if  that  be  not 
sufficient,  “  the  world  ”  itself,  which,  carried  away 
in  a  sort  of  transport,  he  seems  to  divide  into  its  parts, 
“  or  life,  or  death,  or  things  present,  or  things  to  come, 
all,”  I  repeat,  “  are  yours  ”:  but  only,  you  are  not  your 
own,  “  you  are  Christ’s,  and  Christ  is  God’s.”  In 
all  which,  from  human  instruments  who  plant  and 
water,  he  rises  up  to  God,  the  ultimate  source,  the 
beginning  and  the  end.  Stronger  yet  is  the  third 
passage,  for  being  in  the  very  act  of  setting  forth  the 
dignity  of  his  own  Apostolate,  “  Have  we  not  power,” 
he  says,  “  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a  woman,  as  well  as 
the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord, 
and  Cephas  ?”  Now,  whether  “  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles  ”  here  means  those  who  in  the  looser  signi¬ 
fication  are  so  called,  as  “  the  Apostles  of  the  Churches,” 
1  St  Chrys.  in  1  Cor.,  Horn.  3,  n.  2.  Theodoret  on  text. 


180  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

and  “  Andronicus  and  Junias — who  are  of  note  among 
the  Apostles,”1  or  the  original  Twelve,  the  ascending 
scale  is  equally  apparent.  For  why  is  Peter  distin¬ 
guished  by  name  from  all  the  rest  ?  Why  alone  termed 
by  his  prophetical  name  ?  St  Chrysostom,  again,  tells 
us  why.  “  Look  at  Paul’s  wisdom.  He  puts  the  chief 
the  last.  For  there  he  puts  that  which  was  strongest 
among  the  principal.  For  it  was  not  so  remarkable  to 
show  the  rest  doing  this,  as  him  that  was  chief ,  and  had 
been  entrusted  with  the  keys  of  heaven.  And  he  puts 
not  him  alone,  but  all,  as  if  he  would  say,  whether  you 
look  for  inferiors,  or  superiors,  you  have  examples  of 
all.  For  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  being  delivered 
from  their  first  unbelief,2  were  among  the  principal, 
though  they  had  not  reached  the  height  of  Apostles, 
and,  therefore,  he  put  them  in  the  middle,  with  the 
highest  on  the  two  sides:”3  words  in  which  he  seems 
to  indicate  that  Peter  was  as  excellent  among  the 
Apostles,  as  they  among  the  rest  of  the  disciples,  and 
the  Lord’s  brethren. 

Of  the  superiority  contained  in  the  fourth  passage, 
we  have  spoken  above,  under  another  head,  and 
therefore  proceed  to  much  more  remarkable  testi¬ 
monies  of  St  Paul. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  St  Paul  has  occasion4 
to  defend  his  Apostolic  authority  and  the  agreement 
of  the  Gospel  which  he  had  preached  with  that  of  the 
original  Apostles.  After  referring  to  his  marvellous 
conversion,  he  continues,  “  immediately  I  conde¬ 
scended  not  to  flesh  and  blood;  neither  went  I  to 

1  2  Cor.  viii  23  ;  Rom.  xvi,  7.  2  John  vii  5. 

3  In  1  Cor.  Horn.  21,  n.  2.  4  Passaglia,  p.  208. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  181 

Jerusalem  to  the  Apostles,  who  were  before  me,  but 
I  went  into  Arabia,  and  again  I  returned  to  Damascus. 
Then,  after  three  years,  I  went  to  Jerusalem,  to  visit 
Peter,  and  I  tarried  with  him  fifteen  days.  But  other 
of  the  Apostles  I  saw  none,  saving  James,  the  brother 
of  the  Lord.”  At  length,  then,  St  Paul  goes  to 
Jerusalem,  and  that  with  a  fixed  purpose,  “  to  visit 
Peter.”  But  why  Peter  only,  and  not  the  rest  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  P1  Why 
speaks  he  of  these,  and  of  James  himself  besides,  as  if 
he  would  intimate  that  he  had  little  care  of  seeing 
them  ?  No  other  answer  can  be  given  to  such  queries 
than  is  shadowed  out  in  the  prophetic  name  of  Peter, 
and  contained  in  the  explanation  of  it  given  by  Christ 
himself,  “  Upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church.” 

For,  to  prove  this,  let  us  go  back  once  more  to 
witnesses  beyond  suspicion,  who  wrote  a  thousand 
years  before  the  denial  of  Peter’s  Primacy  began. 
The  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  see  here  a  recognition  of 
his  chief  authority.  Thus  Theodoret,  “  Not  needing 
doctrines  from  man,  as  having  received  if  from  the  God 
of  all,  he  gives  the  fitting  honour  to  the  chief.”  Theo¬ 
doret  follows  St  Chrysostom,  who  had  said,  “  After 
so  many  great  deeds,  needing  nothing  of  Peter,  nor  of 
his  instruction,  but  being  his  equal  in  rank,  for  I  will 
say  no  more  here,  still  he  goes  up  to  him  as  to  the 
greater  and  elder  ”;  his  equal  in  the  Apostolic  dignity 
and  the  immediate  reception  of  his  authority  from 
Christ,  but  yet  his  inferior  in  the  range  of  his  juris¬ 
diction,  Peter  being  “  greater  and  elder.”  And  he 
goes  on,  “  He  went  but  for  this  alone,  to  see  him  and 

1  Gal.  i  16-19. 


1 82  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

honour  him  by  his  presence.  He  says,  I  went  up  to 
visit  Peter.  He  said  not  to  see  Peter,  but  to  visit  Peter, 
as  they  say  in  becoming  acquainted  with  great  and 
illustrious  cities.  So  much  pains  he  thought  it  worth 
only  to  see  the  man.”  And  he  concludes,  “  This  I 
repeat,  and  would  have  you  remember,  lest  you  should 
suspect  the  Apostle,  on  hearing  anything  which  seems 
said  against  Peter.  For  it  was  for  this  that  he  so 
speaks,  correcting  by  anticipation,  that  when  he  shall 
say,  I  resisted  Peter,  no  one  may  think  these  words  of 
enmity  and  contention.  For  he  honours  the  man, 
and  loves  him  more  than  all.  For  he  says  that  he  came 
up  for  none  of  the  Apostles  save  him.”  Elsewhere, 
St  Chrysostom,  commenting  on  the  charge,  Feed 
my  sheep,  asks,  “  Why,  then,  passing  by  the  rest,  does 
he  converse  with  him  (Peter)  on  these  things  ?”  And 
he  replies,  Peter  “  was  the  one  preferred  among  the 
Apostles,  and  the  mouthpiece  of  the  disciples,  and  the 
head  of  the  band:  therefore ,  too,  Paul  then  went  up  to 
visit  him  rather  than  the  rest”1  Tertullian,  the  most 
ancient  of  the  Latins,  says,  “  Then,  as  he  relates  him¬ 
self,  he  went  up  to  Jerusalem  for  the  purpose  of  be¬ 
coming  acquainted  with  Peter — that  is,  according  to 
duty  and  the  claim  of  their  identical  faith  and  preach¬ 
ing  ”:2  the  duty  which  Paul  had  to  Peter;  the  claim 
which  Peter  had  on  Paul.  In  the  fourth  century  Marius 
Victorinus  observes:  “  After  three  years,  says  he,  I 
came  to  Jerusalem :  then  he  adds  the  cause,  to  see  Peter. 
For  if  the  foundation  of  the  Church  was  laid  in  Peter, 

1  Theodoret  and  Chrysostom  on  the  text,  and  on  John, 
Horn.  88. 

2  De  Praesc.,  c.  23. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  183 

as  is  said  in  the  Gospel,  Paul,  to  whom  all  things  had 
been  revealed,  knew  that  he  was  bound  to  see  Peter,  as 
one  to  whom  so  great  an  authority  had  been  given  by 
Christ,  not  to  learn  anything  from  him.”1  The  writer 
called  Ambrosiaster,  as  his  works  are  attached  to  those 
of  St  Ambrose,  and  contemporary  with  Pope  Damasus 
(a.d.  366-384),  remarks,  “  It  was  proper  that  he  should 
desire  to  see  Peter,  because  he  was  first  among  the 
Apostles,  to  whom  the  Saviour  had  committed  the  care 
of  the  Churches.”  St  Jerome,  more  largely,  says, 

4  Not  to  behold  his  eyes,  his  cheeks,  or  his  countenance, 
whether  he  were  thin  or  stout,  with  nose  straight  or 
twisted,  covered  with  hair,  or  as  Clement,  in  the 
Periods,  will  have  it,  bald.  It  was  not,  I  conceive,  in 
the  gravity  of  an  Apostle,  that  after  so  long  as  three 
years’  preparation,  he  could  wish  to  see  anything  human 
in  Peter.  But  he  gazed  on  him  with  those  eyes  with 
which  now  he  is  seen  in  his  own  letters.  Paul  saw 
Cephas  with  eyes  such  as  those  with  which  all  wise 
men  now  look  on  Paul.  If  any  one  thinks  otherwise, 
let  him  join  all  this  with  the  sense  before  indicated, 
that  the  Apostles  contributed  nothing  to  each  other. 
For  even  in  that  he  seemed  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  in  order 
that  he  might  see  the  Apostle,  it  was  not  to  learn,  as 
having  himself  too  the  same  author  of  his  preaching, 
but  to  show  honour  to  the  first  Apostle .”2  Our  own 
St  Thomas  sums  up  all  these  in  saying,  “  The  doctor  of 
the  Gentiles,  who  boasts  that  he  had  learnt  the  Gospel, 
not  of  man,  nor  through  man,  but  instructed  by  Christ, 
went  up  to  Jerusalem,,  conferred  concerning  the  faith 

1  Comm,  in  Gal.  i  18.  Mai  nova  collectio,  tom.  3. 

2  Ambrosiaster  and  St  Jerome  on  the  text. 


184  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

with  the  head  of  the  Churches ,  lest  perchance  he  might 
run,  or  had  run,  in  vain.”1 

These  last  words  lead  us  attentively  to  consider 
the  passage  which  follows  in  St  Paul.  At  a  subsequent 
period  the  zealots  of  the  law  had  raised  against  him 
a  report  that  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  differed 
from  that  of  the  Twelve.  At  once  to  meet  and  silence 
such  a  calumny,  he  tells  us  that  “  after  fourteen  years, 
I  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem,  with  Barnabas,  taking 
Titus  also  with  me.  And  I  went  up  according  to 
revelation,  and,”  assigning  the  particular  purpose, 
“  conferred  with  them  the  Gospel  which  I  preach 
among  the  Gentiles,  but  apart  with  them  who  seemed 
to  be  something;  lest,  perhaps,  I  should  run,  or  had 
run,  in  vain.”  Then,  having  proved  the  identity  of 
his  doctrine  with  that  of  those  who  “  seemed  to  be 
something  ” — that  is,  Peter,  James,  and  John — though 
to  him  they  “  added  nothing,”  he  specifies  Peter 
among  these,  and  proceeds  to  draw  a  singular 
parallel  between,  on  the  one  hand,  Peter,  as  accom¬ 
panied  by  James  and  John,  and  himself,  as  work¬ 
ing  with  Barnabas  and  Titus.  If  we  set  the 
clauses  over  against  each  other,  this  will  be  more 
apparent : 

When  they  had  seen  that  as  to  Peter  was  that  of  the 
to  me  was  committed  the  circumcision; 

Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision, 

For  he  who  wrought  in  wrought  in  me  also  among 
Peter,  to  the  Apostleship  of  the  Gentiles; 
the  circumcision, 


1  St  Thomas  Cant.  Epist.,  lib.  i.  97. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  185 

James,1  and  Cephas,  and  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas 
John,  who  seemed  to  be  the  right  hands  of  fellow- 
pillars,  ship; 

where  it  would  appear  that  James  and  John  stand  in 
the  like  relation  to  Cephas  as  Barnabas  and  Titus, 
just  before  mentioned,  to  Paul.  And  St  Chrysostom, 
who,  it  must  be  remarked,  reads  Cephas,  and  not 
James,  first,  as  do  some  manuscripts  and  many  Fathers, 
observes,  “  Where  it  was  requisite  to  compare  himself, 
he  mentions  Peter  only,  but  where  to  call  a  testimony, 
he  names  three  together,  and  with  praise,  saying, 
‘  Cephas,  and  James,  and  John,  who  seemed  to  be 
pillars.’  ”  And  further,  Paul  “  shows  himself  to  be 
of  the  same  rank  with  them,  and  matches  himself  not 
with  the  rest,  but  with  the  leader,  showing  that  each 

1  An  argument  has  been  drawn  by  some  against  St  Peter’s 
Primacy  from  St  Paul  here  placing  St  James  first.  Now  as 
to  this  we  must  remark  that  some  most  ancient  manuscripts, 
and  the  original  Latin  version,  read  “  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John,”  and  that  this  is  followed  by  Tertullian,  Chrysostom, 
Ambrose,  Ambrosiaster,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  Jerome, 
Irenseus,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Cassiodorus,  of  whom 
Jerome  is  the  more  important,  in  that  he  had  studied  so  many 
ancient  commentaries  before  writing  his  own.  But  suppos¬ 
ing  that  the  vulgar  reading  is  the  true  one,  Peter’s  being  once 
placed  by  St  Paul  between  St  James  and  St  John  will  not 
counterbalance  the  vast  positive  evidence  for  his  Primacy. 
Those  who  wish  to  see  the  probable  reasons  why  St  James 
was  here  placed  first,  may  consult  Passaglia,  b.  1,  c.  14,  who 
treats  of  the  question  at  length.  Perhaps  St  Paul,  narrating 
historically  a  past  incident,  recalled  them  to  his  recollection 
in  the  order  of  time  in  which  they  received  him :  and  St  James, 
residing  constantly  at  Jerusalem,  might  very  probably  have 
seen  him  first. 


1 86  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

of  them  enjoyed  the  same  dignity  ”x — that  is,  of  the 
Apostolic  commission,  and  the  divine  co-operation. 
And  Ambrosiaster  explains  the  parallel:  “  Paul  names 
Peter  only,  and  compares  him  to  himself,  as  having 
received  the  Primacy  for  the  founding  of  the  Church ,  he 
being  in  like  manner  elected  to  hold  a  Primacy  in 
founding  the  Churches  of  the  Gentiles ,  yet  so  that  Peter 
if  occasion  might  be,  should  preach  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  Paul  to  the  Jews.  For  both  are  found  to  have 
done  both.”  And  presently,  “  By  the  Apostles  who 
were  the  more  illustrious  among  the  rest,  whom  for 
their  stability  he  names  pillars,  and  who  were  ever  in 
the  Lord’s  secret  council,  being  worthy  to  behold  his 
glory  on  the  mount  ”  (here  Ambrosiaster  confuses 
James  the  brother  of  the  Lord  with  James  the  brother 
of  John),  “  by  these  he  declares  to  have  been  approved 
the  gift  which  he  received  from  God,  that  he  should  be 
worthy  to  hold  the  Primacy  in  the  preaching  of  the 
Gentiles,  as  Peter  held  it  in  the  preaching  of  the 
circumcision.  And  as  he  assigns  to  Peter  for  companions 
distinguished  men  among  the  Apostles ,  so  he  joins 
Barnabas  to  himself:  yet  he  claims  to  himself  alone  the 
grace  of  the  Primacy  as  granted  by  God ,  like  as  to  Peter 
alone  it  was  granted  among  the  Apostles .” 2 

Now,  Baronius  proves  that  the  above  words  cannot 
be  taken  of  a  division  of  jurisdiction,  and  that  the 
singular  dignity  of  Peter  is  marked  in  them.  “For 
as  a  mark  of  his  excellence  Christ  himself,  who  came 
to  save  all  men,  with  whom  there  is  no  distinction  of 
Jew  and  Greek,  was  yet  called  ‘  minister  of  the  circum- 

1  St  Chrys.  in  Gal.,  c.  2. 

2  Comm,  on  Gal.  ii  7,  8. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  187 

cision,’  by  Paul  (Rom.  xv  8),  a  title  of  dignity,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Paul’s  own  words,  for  theirs  was  ‘  the  adoption 
of  children,  and  the  glory,  and  the  testament,  and  the 
giving  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the 
promises,’  while  ‘  the  Gentiles  praise  God  for  his 
mercy.’  But  just  as  Christ  our  Lord  was  so  called 
minister  of  the  circumcision,  as  yet  to  be  the  pastor 
and  Saviour  of  all,  so  Peter  too  was  called  the  minister 
of  the  circumcision,  in  such  sense  as  yet  to  be  by  the 
Lord  constituted  (Acts  ix  32)  pastor  and  ruler  of  the 
whole  flock.  Whence  St  Leo,  ‘  Out  of  the  whole 
world  Peter  alone  is  chosen  to  preside  over  the  calling 
of  all  the  Gentiles,  and  over  all  the  Apostles  and  the 
collected  Fathers  of  the  Church,  so  that  though  there 
be  among  the  people  of  God  many  priests  and  many 
shepherds,  yet  Peter  rules  all  by  immediate  com¬ 
mission,  whom  Christ  also  rules  by  sovereign  power.’  ”x 
The  parallel,  then,  drawn  by  Paul  between  himself 
and  Peter,  distinctly  conveys  that  as  he  was  superior  to 
Barnabas  and  Titus,  and  used  their  co-operation,  so 
was  Peter  among  the  Apostles,  and  specially  the  chief 
ones,  James  and  John,  as  their  leader  and  head.  For 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words,  “  He  who  wrought 
in  Peter  to  the  Apostleship  of  the  circumcision  ”? 
Was  the  Apostleship  of  the  circumcision  entrusted  to 
Peter  only  ?  It  needs  no  proof  that  it  was  also  en¬ 
trusted  to  James  and  John,  nay,  Paul  himself  im¬ 
mediately  says  so:  “  They  gave  to  me  and  Barnabas 
the  right  hands  of  fellowship,  that  we  should  go  unto 
the  Gentiles,  and  they  unto  the  circumcision.”  Why, 
then,  does  Paul  so  express  himself  as  to  intimate  that 
1  Baron,  Ann.  a.d.  51,  §  29.  St  Leo,  Serm.  4. 


1 88  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

the  Gospel  of  the  circumcision  was  given  to  Peter 
only  ?  For  the  same  reason  that  he  said  that  to  him¬ 
self  “  was  committed  the  Gospel  of  the  uncircum¬ 
cision, ”  and  that  God  “  wrought  in  me  also  among  the 
Gentiles.”  Now  Barnabas  likewise  had  been  separ¬ 
ated1  by  the  Holy  Ghost  himself  for  the  Gentile 
mission;  Barnabas,  too,  and  Titus  were  discharging  the 
office  of  ambassadors  for  Christ  among  the  Gentiles: 
“  that  we,”  Paul  says,  not  I,  “  should  go  to  the 
Gentiles.”  The  terms,  therefore,  used  by  Paul  both 
of  himself  and  Peter,  do  not  exclude  the  rest,  but 
express  the  superiority  of  the  one  named  singly  before 
the  rest,  as  if  he  alone  held  the  charge.  Their  fittest 
interpretation,  then,  will  be,  “  The  Apostles  saw  that 
the  Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was  no  less  given  to 
me  above  the  rest  than  the  Gospel  of  the  circumcision 
to  Peter  above  the  rest;  for  he  who  wrought  in  Peter 
above  the  rest  in  the  Gospel  of  the  circumcision, 
wrought  also  in  me  above  the  rest  in  the  Gospel  of  the 
uncircumcision.”  But  what  can  set  forth  St  Peter’s 
dignity  more  remarkably  than  to  exhibit  him  in  the 
same  light  of  superiority  among  the  original  Apostles 
as  St  Paul  was  among  St  Barnabas  and  his  other  fellow- 
workers  ? 

Further  confirmation  of  this  is  given  by  the  argu¬ 
ment  with  which  he  refutes  the  calumny  urged  against 
him  of  disagreement  with  the  Apostles.  For  while  he 
appeals  to  them  in  general,  and  to  his  union  with  them, 
he  likewise  specifies  the  point  which  favoured  that 
union.  It  was  the  parallel  between  himself  and  Peter, 
as  we  have  seen ;  it  was  the  exact  resemblance  between 

1  Acts  xiii  2 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  189 

his  mission  and  that  of  Peter,  which  was  the  cause  of 
their  joining  hands :  they  approve  Paul’s  Apostleship 
because  they  see  that  it  follows  the  type  of  Peter’s. 

And  other  words  of  Paul  which  follow  prove  not 
only  the  point  of  his  own  cause,  but  the  source  of 
Peter’s  singular  privileges.  “  But  when  Cephas  was 
come  to  Antioch,  I  withstood  him  to  the  face,  because 
he  was  to  be  blamed:  for  before  that  some  came  from 
James,  he  did  eat  with  the  Gentiles;  but  when  they 
were  come  he  withdrew,  and  separated  himself,  fearing 
them  who  were  of  the  circumcision.  And  to  his 
dissimulation  the  rest  of  the  Jews  consented,  so  that 
Barnabas  also  was  led  by  them  into  that  dissimulation. 
But  when  I  saw  that  they  walked  not  uprightly  unto 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  I  said  to  Cephas  before  them 
all,  If  thou,  being  a  Jew,  livest  after  the  manner  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  not  as  the  Jews  do,  how  dost  thou  compel 
the  Gentiles  to  live  as  the  Jews  ?”  For  why  did  Paul 
here  censure  Peter  only  ?  By  his  own  account  not  only 
Peter,  but  the  rest,  and  Barnabas  himself  amongst  them, 
set  apart  as  he  was  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles,  did  not  defend  Christian  liberty,  as  they 
ought  to  have  done.  Why,  then,  does  he  single  out 
Peter  among  all  these,  resist  him  to  the  face,  and  so 
firmly  censure  all,  in  his  person  ?  No  answer  can  be 
given  but  one:  that  by  this  dissembling  of  Peter  the 
zealots  of  the  law  gathered  double  courage  to  press 
against  Paul  their  calumny  of  dissension  from  Peter, 
and  to  infer  that  he  had  run  in  vain,  from  the  indulgence 
which  Peter  showed:  that  Peter’s  authority  with  all 
was  so  great  that  his  example  drew  the  pastors  and 
their  flocks  alike  to  his  side,  and  that  it  was  requisite 


190  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

to  correct  the  members  in  the  head.  From  this  St 
Chrysostom  proves  that  it  was  really  the  Apostle  Peter, 
which  some,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  denied:  “  For  to 
say  that  I  resisted  him  to  the  face,  and  to  put  this  as 
a  great  thing,  was  to  show  that  he  had  not  reverenced 
the  dignity  of  his  person.  But  had  he  said  it  of 
another,  that  I  resisted  him  to  the  face,  he  would  not 
have  put  it  as  a  great  thing.  Again,  if  it  had  been 
another  Peter,  his  change  would  have  not  had  such 
force  as  to  draw  the  rest  of  the  Jews  with  him.  For  he 
used  no  exhortation,  nor  advice,  but  merely  dis¬ 
sembled,  and  separated  himself,  and  that  dissembling 
and  separation  had  power  to  draw  after  him  all  the 
disciples,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  his  person”1 
Again,  another  writer  of  the  fourth  century  tells  us 
this:  “  Therefore  he  inveighs  against  Peter  alone,  in 
order  that  the  rest  might  learn  in  the  person  of  him 
who  is  the  first.”2  It  was,  then,  Peter’s  Primacy,  and 
the  necessity  of  agreeing  with  him  thence  arising,  which 
led  Paul  to  resist  him  publicly,  and  disregarding  the 
conduct  of  the  rest,  to  direct  an  admonition  to  him 
alone.  “  So  great,”  St  Jerome  tells  us,  on  these  two 
passages,  “  was  Peter’s  authority,  that  Paul  in  his 
epistle  wrote,  ‘  Then  after  three  years  I  went  to 
Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  and  I  tarried  with  him  fifteen 
days.’  And  again  in  what  follows:  ‘  After  fourteen 
years  I  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem  with  Barnabas, 
taking  Titus  also  with  me.  And  I  went  up  according 
to  revelation,  and  conferred  with  them  the  Gospel 
which  I  preach  among  the  Gentiles,’  showing  that  he 

1  Horn,  on  “  I  resisted  him  to  the  face,”  n.  15. 

2  Ambrosiaster  on  Gal.  ii  14. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  19 1 


had  no  security  in  preaching  the  Gospel ,  unless  it  were 
confirmed  by  the  sentence  of  Peter  and  those  who  were 
with  him.”1 

But  this  passage,2  concerning  the  reprehension  of 
St  Peter  by  St  Paul,  has  afforded  so  signal  an  instance 
“  of  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wresting  Scripture 
to  their  own  proper  destruction,”3  that  we  must  dwell 
a  little  longer  upon  it.  First,  the  Gnostics  and  the 
Marcionites  quoted  it  to  accuse  the  Apostles  of 
ignorance,  and  to  favour  their  own  claim  to  a  pro¬ 
gressive  light.  In  Peter,  they  would  have  it,  there 
was  still  a  taint  of  Judaism.  Next  Porphyry,  who 
“  raged  against  Christ  like  a  mad  dog,”4  tried  by  this 
passage  to  weaken  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,  and 
to  convict  Paul  of  ambition  and  rashness,  who  censured 
the  first  of  the  Apostles  and  the  leader  of  the  band,  not 
privately,  but  openly  before  all,  as  St  Chrysostom  and 
St  Jerome  tell  us.  Julian  the  Apostate  succeeded  these, 
and  tried,  by  means  of  Paul’s  contention  with  Peter, 
to  bring  discredit  on  the  religion  itself.  For  who,  he 
asked,  could  value  a  religion  whose  chief  teachers  were 
guilty  of  hypocrisy,  ignorance,  and  ambition  ?  And 
in  complete  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  these,  all 
who,  since  the  sixteenth  century,  have  attempted  to 
impugn  St  Peter’s  prerogatives,  have  rested  their  chief 
effort  on  the  exaggeration  and  distortion  of  this  repre¬ 
hension.  “  This,”  says  Baronius,  “  is  the  stone  of 
stumbling  and  rock  of  offence,  on  which  a  great  number 
have  dashed  themselves.  For  those,  who  without  any 
diligent  consideration  have  superficially  interpreted  a 

1  Epist.  inter  Augustin.,  75,  n.  8. 

2  Passaglia,  p.  217.  3  2  Pet.  iii  16.  4  St  Jerome. 


192  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

difficult  statement,  have  gone  so  far  in  their  folly  as 
either  to  accuse  Paul  of  rashness  for  having  inveighed 
against  Peter  not  merely  with  freedom,  but  wanton¬ 
ness,  or  to  calumniate  Peter  as  a  hypocrite,  for  acting 
with  dissimulation;  or  to  condemn  both,  for  not 
agreeing  in  the  same  rule  of  faith.”1 

In  most  remarkable  contrast  with  these  stand  out 
three  several  interpretations,  which  prevailed  in  early 
times,  all  differing  from  each  other  in  points,  but  all 
equally  careful  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  Peter,  and 
to  clear  up  the  conduct  of  Paul.  First,  from  St 
Clement  of  Alexandria  in  the  second  century  up  to 
St  Chrysostom  in  the  fourth,  we  find  a  number  of 
Greek  writers  asserting  that  it  was  not  the  Apostle 
Peter,  who  was  here  meant,  but  another;  St  Jerome 
gives  their  reasons  thus:  “  There  are  those  who  think 
that  Cephas,  whom  Paul  here  writes  that  he  resisted 
to  the  face,  was  not  the  Apostle  Peter,  but  another  of 
the  seventy  disciples  so  called,  and  they  allege  that 
Peter  could  not  have  withdrawn  himself  from  eating 
with  the  Gentiles,  for  he  had  baptized  Cornelius  the 
centurion,  and  on  his  ascending  to  Jerusalem,  being 
opposed  by  those  of  the  circumcision  who  said,  *  Why 
hast  thou  entered  in  to  men  uncircumcised,  and  eaten 
with  them  ?’  after  narrating  the  vision,  he  terminates 
his  answer  thus:  ‘  If,  then,  God  hath  given  to  them 
the  same  grace  as  to  us  who  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  was  I  that  I  should  withstand  God  ?’ 
On  hearing  which  they  were  silent,  and  glorified  God, 
saying:  ‘  Therefore  to  the  Gentiles,  also,  God  hath 
given  repentance  unto  life.’  Especially  as  Luke,  the 

1  Ad.  Ann.  51,  §  32. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  193 

writer  of  the  history,  makes  no  mention  of  this  dis¬ 
cussion,  nor  even  says  that  Peter  was  at  Antioch  with 
Paul;  and  occasion  would  be  given  to  Porphyry’s 
blasphemies,  if  we  could  believe  either  that  Peter  had 
erred ,  or  that  Paul  had  impertinently  censured  the  prince 
of  the  Apostles P1 

But  this  interpretation,  contrary  both  to  internal 
evidence  and  to  early  tradition,  and  suggested  only 
by  the  anxiety  to  defend  St  Peter’s  dignity,  did  not 
prevail.  Another  succeeded,  supported  by  St  Chrysos¬ 
tom,  St  Cyril,  and  the  greatest  Greek  commentators, 
and  for  a  long  time  by  St  Jerome,  even  more  remarkably 
opposed  to  the  apparent  sense  of  the  passage,  and  only, 
as  it  would  seem,  dictated  by  the  same  desire  to  defend 
the  dignity  of  St  Peter  and  the  conduct  of  St  Paul. 
Admitting  that  it  was  really  Peter  who  was  here  men¬ 
tioned,  they  maintained  that  it  was  not  a  real  dissension 
between  the  two  Apostles,  but  apparent  only,  and 
arranged  both  by  the  one  and  the  other,  to  terminate 
the  question  more  decidedly.  St  Chrysostom2  sets 
forth  at  great  length  this  opinion:  “  Do  you  see,”  says 
he,  “  how  St  Paul  accounts  himself  the  least  of  all 
saints,  not  of  Apostles  only  ?  Now,  he  who  was  so 
disposed  with  respect  to  all,  both  knew  how  great  a  pre¬ 
rogative  Peter  ought  to  enjoy,  and  reverenced  him 
most  of  all  men,  and  was  disposed  towards  him  as 
he  deserved.  And  this  is  a  proof.  The  whole  earth 
was  looking  to  Paul;  there  rested  on  his  spirit  the 
solicitude  for  the  Churches  of  all  the  world.  A 

1  St  Jerome  on  Gal.,  ch.  ii. 

2  Homily  on  the  text  “  I  resisted  him  to  the  face,”  n.  8, 
tom.  iii,  p.  368. 


13 


194  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

thousand  matters  engaged  him  every  day;  he  was 
besieged  with  appointments,  commands,  corrections, 
counsels,  exhortations,  teachings,  the  administration 
of  endless  business;  yet  giving  up  all  these,  he  went  to 
Jerusalem.  And  there  was  no  other  occasion  for  this 
journey  save  to  see  Peter,  as  he  says  himself:  ‘  I  went 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  visit  Peter.’  Thus  he  honoured 
him,  and  preferred  him  to  all  men.”  Suspecting,  too, 
that  an  accusation  against  Peter’s  unwavering  faith 
might  be  brought  from  the  words,  “  fearing  those  of  the 
circumcision,”  he  breaks  out,  “  What  say  you  ?  Peter 
fearful  and  unmanly  ?  Was  he  not  for  this  called  Peter, 
that  his  faith  was  immovable  ?  What  are  you  doing, 
friend  ?  Reverence  the  name  given  by  the  Lord  to 
the  disciple.  Peter  fearful  and  unmanly  !  Who  will 
endure  you  saying  such  things  ?” 

Now  compare1  together  these  two  interpretations 
of  the  Greek  Fathers  with  that  of  the  reformers  and 
their  adherents  since  the  sixteenth  century.  A  more 
complete  antagonism  of  feelings  and  principles  cannot 
be  conceived.  I.  There  is  not  a  Greek  Father  who 
does  not  infer  the  singular  authority  of  Peter  from  the 
first  and  second  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
There  is  not  an  adherent  of  the  reformers  who  does  not 
trust  that  he  can  draw  from  those  same  chapters  matter 
to  impugn  St  Peter’s  Primacy.  II.  The  Greek  Fathers 
anxiously  search  out  every  point  which  may  conduce 
to  Peter’s  praise.  The  adherent  of  the  reformers 
suppresses  all  such,  and  seems  not  to  see  them. 
III.  If  anything  in  Paul’s  account  seems  at  first  sight 
to  tell  against  Peter’s  special  dignity,  the  Greek 

1  Passaglia,  p.  232. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  oefice  195 

Fathers  are  studious  carefully  to  remove  it;  the  ad¬ 
herents  of  the  reformers  to  exaggerate  it.  IV.  The 
Greek  Fathers  prefer  slightly  to  force  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  words,  and  to  desert  the  original 
interpretation  rather  than  set  Apostles  at  variance  with 
each  other,  or  admit  that  Peter,  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles,  was  not  treated  with  due  deference.  The 
adherents  of  the  reformers  intensify  everything,  take 
it  in  the  worse  sense,  and  are  the  more  at  home  the 
more  bitterly  they  inveigh  against  Peter. 

Now  turn  to  the  third  interpretation,  that  of  the 
Latin  Fathers.  They  admit  both  that  it  was  Peter 
and  that  it  was  a  real  dissension,  but  they  are  as  anxious 
as  the  Greek  to  defend  Peter’s  dignity.  Thus  Ter- 
tullian:1  “  If  Peter  was  blamed — certainly  it  was  a 
fault  of  conduct ,  not  of  preaching .”  And  Cyprian:2 
“Not  even  Peter, whom  first  the  Lord  chose,  and  upon 
whom  he  built  his  Church,  when  afterwards  Paul 
disagreed  with  him  respecting  circumcision,  claimed 
aught  proudly,  or  assumed  aught  arrogantly  to  himself, 
saying  that  he  held  the  Primacy,  and  that  obedience 
rather  was  due  to  him  by  those  younger  and  later.” 
And  Augustine:  “  Peter  himself  received  with  the 
piety  of  a  holy  and  benighted  humility  what  was  with 
advantage  done  by  Paul  in  the  freedom  of  charity. 
And  so  he  gave  to  posterity  a  rarer  and  a  holier  example 
— that  they  should  not  disdain,  if  perchance  they  left 
the  right  track,  to  he  corrected  even  hy  their  youngers — 
than  Paul,  that  even  inferiors  might  confidently  venture 
to  resist  superiors ,  maintaining  brotherly  charity,  in  the 
defence  of  evangelical  truth.  For  better  as  it  is  on  no 
1  De  Praesc.,  c.  24.  2  Cyprian,  Ep.  71. 


196  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


occasion  to  quit  the  proper  path,  yet  much  more 
wonderful  and  praiseworthy  is  it,  willingly  to  accept 
correction,  than  boldly  to  correct  deviation.  Paul,  then, 
has  the  praise  of  just  liberty,  and  Peter  of  holy  humility , 
which,  so  far  as  seems  to  me  according  to  my  small 
measure,  had  been  a  better  defence  against  the 
calumnies  of  Porphyry  than  the  giving  him  greater 
occasion  of  finding  fault :  for  it  would  be  a  much  more 
stinging  accusation  that  Christians  should  with  deceit 
either  write  their  epistles  or  bear  the  mysteries  of 
their  God.”1 

Now,  to  see2  the  fundamental  opposition  between 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  and  the  reformers,  let 
us  observe  more  closely  these  three  ancient  inter¬ 
pretations  of  this  passage.  The  first  denies  that 
Cephas,  so  reprehended  by  Paul,  was  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles ;  the  second  affirms  this,  but  reduces  the  whole 
contention  to  an  arrangement  of  prudence  between 
the  two  Apostles ;  and  the  third  maintains  the  reality 
of  the  reprehension.  All  three,  however,  have  in 
common  the  reconciling  Peter’s  chief  dignity  with  the 
reprehension  of  him,  and  the  two  latter,  besides,  are 
much  more  careful  to  admire  his  modesty  than  Paul’s 
liberty,  and  make  the  most  of  every  point  in  the 
narration  setting  forth  Peter’s  Primacy.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  reformers  use  this  reprehension  as  their 
sharpest  weapon  against  his  authority,  praise  Paul’s 
liberty  to  the  utmost  in  order  to  depress  that  authority, 
hunt  out  everything  against  Peter,  and  pass  over  every¬ 
thing  for  him.  It  is  equally  evident  that  their  motive 
in  this  runs  counter  to  the  faith  universal  in  the  Church 


1  Ep.  82,  n.  22. 


Passaglia,  p.  240. 


2 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  197 

during  the  first  four  centuries ;  and  that  their  inference 
cannot  be  accepted  without  rejecting  all  Christian 
antiquity,  and  the  very  sentiments  expressed  by  Paul 
himself,  as  we  have  seen,  towards  Peter. 

But  as  to  the  reprehension  itself,  it  would  seem  to 
have  been  not  on  a  point  of  doctrine  at  all,  but  of 
conduct.  St  Peter  had  long  ago  both  admitted  the 
Gentiles  into  the  Church,  and  declared  that  they  were 
not  bound  to  the  Jewish  law.  But  out  of  regard  to 
the  feelings  of  the  circumcised  converts,  he  pursued 
a  line  of  conduct  at  Antioch  which  they  mistook  to 
mean  an  approval  of  their  error,  and  which  needed, 
therefore,  to  be  publicly  cleared  up.  Accordingly, 
Peter’s  fault,  if  any  there  were,  amounted  to  this,  that 
having,  with  the  best  intention,  done  what  was  not 
forbidden,  he  had  not  sufficiently  foreseen  what  others 
would  thence  infer  contrary  to  his  own  intention. 
Can  this  be  esteemed  either  a  dogmatic  error,  or  a 
proof  of  his  not  holding  supreme  authority  ?  But  the 
event  being  injurious  and  contrary  to  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel,  why  should  not  Paul  admonish  Peter  con¬ 
cerning  it  ?  Now,  very  remarkable  it  is,  that  he  quotes 
St  Peter’s  own  example  and  authority,  opposes  the 
antecedent  to  the  subsequent  fact,  and  maintains 
Gospel  liberty  by  Peter’s  own  conduct.  St  Chrysos¬ 
tom  remarked  this.  “  Observe  his  prudence.  He 
said  not  to  him,  Thou  dost  wrong  in  living  as  a  Jew, 
but  he  alleges  his  former  mode  of  living,  that  the 
admonition  and  the  counsel  may  seem  to  come  not  from 
Paul’s  mind,  but  from  the  judgement  of  Peter  already 
expressed.  For  had  he  said,  Thou  dost  wrong  to  keep 
the  law,  Peter’s  disciples  would  have  blamed  him. 


198  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Now,  hearing  that  this  admonition  and  correction 
came  not  from  Paul’s  judgement,  but  that  Peter  himself 
so  lived,  and  held  in  his  mind  this  belief  whether  they 
would  or  would  not,  they  were  obliged  to  be 
quiet.”1 

1  Horn,  on  text,  n.  17. 


CHAPTER  VII 


ST  PETER’S  PRIMACY  INVOLVED  IN  THE  FOUR¬ 
FOLD  UNITY  OF  CHRIST’S  KINGDOM 

The  doctrine1  of  St  Paul  has  brought  us  to  a  most 
interesting  point  of  the  subject,  what,  namely,  is  the 
principle  of  unity  in  the  Church.  A  short  considera¬ 
tion  of  this  will  show  us  how  the  office  of  St  Peter 
enters  into  and  forms  part  of  the  radical  idea  of  the 
Church,  so  that  the  moment  we  profess  our  belief  in 
one  holy  Catholic  Church,  the  belief  is  likewise  involved 
in  that  Primacy  of  teaching  and  authority  which  makes 
and  keeps  it  one. 

The  principle  of  unity,  then,  is  no  other  than  “  the 
Word  made  flesh  that  divine  Person  who  has  for 
ever  joined  together  the  Godhead  and  the  Manhood. 
Thus,  St  Paul  speaks  to  us  of  God  “  having  made 
known  to  us  the  mystery  of  his  will,  according  to  his 
good  pleasure,  which  he  purposed  in  himself,  in  the 
dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times,  to  gather  together 
under  one  head  all  things  in  Christ ,  both  which  are  in 
heaven  and  which  are  on  earth  at  whose  resurrection, 
“  he  set  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to 
be  head  over  all  the  Church,  which  is  his  body,  the 
fulness  of  him  who  filleth  all  in  all.”  And  again, 
“  the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ;  .  .  .  and  the  head 

1  In  this  chapter  I  have  availed  myself  of  Passaglia,  b.  i,  c. 
25,  and  b.  2,  c.  1 1. 


199 


200 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


of  Christ  is  God.”  “  And  we  being  many  are  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of 
another:”1  as  again  he  sets  forth  at  length  in  the  twelfth 
chapter  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  calling 
that  one  body  by  the  very  name  of  Christ. 

With  one  voice  the  ancient  Fathers2  exult  in  this  as 
the  great  purpose  of  his  Incarnation.  “  The  work,” 
says  St  Hippolytus,3  “  of  his  taking  a  body,  is  the 
gathering  up  into  one  head  of  all  things  unto  him.” 
“  The  Word  Man,”  says  St  Irenaeus,4  “  gathering  all 
things  up  into  himself,  that  as  in  super-celestial,  and 
spiritual,  and  invisible  things,  the  Word  of  God  is  the 
chief,  so  also  in  visible  and  corporeal  things  he  may 
hold  the  chiefship,  assuming  the  Primacy  to  himself » 
and  joining  himself  as  Head  to  the  Church,  may  draw 
all  things  to  himself,  at  the  fitting  time.”  And  again 
“  The  Son  of  God  was  made  Man  among  men,  to 
join  the  end  to  the  beginning,  that  is,  man  to  God  ”; 
or,  as  Tertullian  says,5  “  that  God  might  show  that  in 
himself  was  the  evolution  of  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
and  the  return  of  the  end  to  the  beginning.”  And 
(Ecumenius,  “  Angels  and  men  were  rent  asunder: 
God  then  joined  them,  and  made  them  one  through 
Christ.”  St  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  breaks  out, 
“  Thou  art  he  that  didst  bridge  over  heaven  and  earth 
by  thy  sacred  body.”  And  Augustine,6  “  Far  off  he 

1  Eph.  i  9,  22;  i  Cor.  xi  2;  Rom.  xii  5. 

2  See  Petavius,  de  Incarn.,  lib.  2,  c.  7  and  8,  for  the  follow¬ 
ing  quotations. 

3  Hippolytus,  quoted  by  Anastasius,  p.  216. 

4  Irenaeus,  lib.  iii  18,  and  iv  37.  6  De  Monogamia,  c.  5. 

6  Augustine,  21  Tract,  in  Joannem. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


201 


was  from  us,  and  very  far.  What  so  far  off  as  the 
creature  and  the  Creator  ?  What  so  far  off  as  God 
and  man  ?  What  so  far  off  as  justice  and  iniquity  ? 
What  so  far  off  as  eternity  and  mortality  ?  See  how 
far  off  was  ‘  the  Word  in  the  beginning,  God  with  God, 
by  whom  all  things  were  made.’  How,  then,  was  He 
made  nigh,  that  he  might  be  as  we,  and  we  in  him  ? 
*  The  Word  was  made  flesh.’  ”  “  Man,  being  assumed, 

was  taken  into  the  nature  of  the  Godhead,”  says 
St  Hilary;1  and  St  Chrysostom,2  “He  puts  on  flesh, 
that  he  who  cannot  be  held  may  be  holden  “  dwell¬ 
ing  with  us,”  says  Gregory3  of  Nazianzen,  “  by  inter¬ 
posing  his  flesh  as  a  veil,  that  the  incomprehensible 
may  be  comprehended.”  “  For  since,”  adds  St  Cyril,4 
“  man’s  nature  was  not  capable  of  approaching  the 
pure  and  unmixed  glory  of  the  Godhead,  because  of 
its  inherent  weakness,  for  our  use  the  only-begotten 
one  put  on  our  likeness.”  “  In  the  assumption  of  our 
nature,”  says  St  Leo,5  “  he  became  to  us  the  step  by 
which  through  him  we  may  be  able  to  mount  unto 
him:”  and,  “  it  is  not  doubtful  that  man’s  nature  has 
been  taken  into  such  connection  by  the  Son  of  God, 
that,  not  only  in  that  man  who  is  the  first-born  of  all 
creation,  but  even  in  all  his  saints,  there  is  one  and  the 
same  Christ:  and  as  the  head  cannot  be  divided  from 
the  limbs,  so  neither  the  limbs  from  the  head.  For 

1  Hilary  on  Psalm  68. 

2  St  Chrys.,  tom.  5  (Savile),  Horn.  106. 

3  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  36. 

4  St  Cyril,  Dialog.  1,  de  Trin.,  p.  399. 

3  St  Leo,  5th  Serm.  on  Nativity,  c.  4  and  5,  12th  Serm.  on 
Passion,  c.  3. 


202 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


though  it  belong  not  to  this  life,  but  to  that  of  eternity, 
that  God  be  all  in  all,  yet  even  now  he  is  the  undivided 
inhabitant  of  his  temple,  which  is  the  Church.”  For 
all  the  above  is  contained  in  our  Lord’s  own  words, 
“  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  in  me,  and 
I  in  thee,”  on  which  St  Athanasius1  says,  “  that  all, 
being  carried  by  me,  may  be  all  one  body  and  one 
spirit,  and  reach  the  perfect  man  — “  for,  as  the 
Lord  having  clothed  himself  in  a  body,  became  man, 
so  we  men  are  deified  by  the  Word,  being  assumed 
through  his  flesh.”  And  another,2  interpreting  the 
words,  “  that  they  all  may  be  one,”  “  thus  I  will,  that 
they  being  drawn  into  unity,  may  be  blended  with  each 
other,  and  becoming  as  one  body,  may  all  be  in  me, 
who  carry  all  in  that  one  temple  which  I  have  assumed : 
the  temple,  namely,  of  his  body.”  And  lastly,  St 
Hilary3  deduces  this  not  only  from  the  Incarnation, 
but  from  the  blessed  Eucharist.  “  For,  if  the  Word 
be  really  made  flesh,  and  we  really  receive  the  Word 
as  flesh  in  the  food  of  the  Lord,  how  is  he  not  to  be 
thought  to  remain  in  us  naturally,  since,  both  in  being 
born  a  man,  he  assumed  the  nature  of  our  flesh,  never 
to  be  severed  from  him,  and  has  joined  the  nature  of 
his  flesh  to  the  eternal  nature  under  the  sacrament  of 
the  flesh  to  be  communicated  to  us  ?” 

So  deep  in  the  junction  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures  in  our  Lord’s  adorable  person  lies  the  root  of 
unity  for  that  humanity  which  he  purchased  with  his 

1  St  Athanasius,  Orat.  3,  contr.  Arian.,  tom.  1,  p.  572. 
Oxf.  Trans,  p.  403. 

2  Ephrem,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  quoted  by  Photius,  cod. 

3  St  Hilary,  de  Trin.,  lib.  8,  n.  13. 


229. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  203 

blood.  It  is  in  virtue  of  this  headship  that  the  whole 
mystical  body  is  one,  and  “  we  all  members  one  of 
another.”  By  this  headship  our  Lord  nourishes 
and  cherishes  the  Church,  and  communicates  to  her 
incessantly  that  stream  of  grace  by  which  she  lives. 
And  as  this  headship  flows  from  the  union  of  the 
Godhead  and  Manhood,  so  it  is  inseparable  from  his 
Person,  and  incommunicable.  But  he  has  himself > 
in  his  parting  discourse,  recorded  by  St  John,  dwelt 
upon  the  great  sacramentum  of  unity,  the  result  of 
this  Headship,  and  set  it  forth  as  the  sign  and  seal  of 
his  own  divine  mission,  and  the  one  convincing  proof 
of  his  religion’s  superhuman  origin.  By  following 
his  words  we  shall  see  that  this  unity  is  not  simple 
but  fourfold,  and  we  shall  trace  the  mutual  relation 
and  subordination  to  the  divine  Headship  of  its 
several  kinds. 

1.  And  first,  “  In1  that  day,”  says  he — that  is,  after 
his  own  resurrection — “  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in 
my  Father,  and  you  in  me,  and  I  in  you,”  whereby 
he  declares  that,  in  the  completion  of  the  dispensation, 
the  union  between  himself  and  the  faithful  shall  be 
such  as  to  image  out  the  mutual  indwelling  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  Which  again  is  further  expressed, 
“  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  husband¬ 
man.  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit  he 
will  take  away:  and  every  one  that  beareth  fruit,  he 
will  purge  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit.  .  .  . 
I  am  the  vine;  you  the  branches:  he  that  abideth  in 
me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  beareth  much  fruit:  for 
without  me  you  can  do  nothing.  If  any  one  abide 

1  John  xiv  20. 


204  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


not  in  me,  he  shall  be  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  shall 
wither,  and  they  shall  gather  him  up  and  cast  him 
into  the  fire,  and  he  burneth.  If  you  abide  in  me, 
and  my  words  abide  in  you,  you  shall  ask  whatever 
you  will,  and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you.”1  In  these 
words  he  sets  forth  that  union  of  mystical  influx, 
by  co-operation  with  which  his  disciples  keep  his 
words  and  abide  in  his  love,  and  of  which  he  is  himself 
the  immediate  principle. 

2.  But  he  does  not  stop  at  this  interior  and  invisible 
union  between  his  disciples  and  himself:  he  speaks 
likewise  of  a  new  and  special  command,  and  of  a  special 
gift,  by  which  their  union  with  each  other  should  be 
known.  “  A  new  command  I  give  unto  you,  that 
you  love  one  another:  as  I  have  loved  you,  that  you 
also  love  one  another.  By  this  shall  all  men  know 
that  you  are  my  disciples,  if  you  have  love  one  to 
another.”2  And  again,  “  This  is  my  command,  that 
you  love  one  another,  as  I  have  loved  you.  Greater 
love  than  this  hath  no  man,  that  any  one  lay  down  his 
life  for  his  friends.  .  .  .  These  things  I  command 
you,  that  you  love  one  another.”3  But  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whom  our  Lord  was  about  to  send  forth,  is  the  efficient 
principle  of  the  love  here  enjoined,  by  his  substantial 
indwelling,  as  we  are  told,  “  The  charity  of  God  is 
poured  forth  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who  is 
given  to  us.”4  From  him,  therefore,  bestowed  by 
the  Head  of  the  Church,  springs  that  unity  of  charity, 
which,  being  itself  internal,  is  shown  in  outward  signs, 
and  constitutes  that  distinctive  spirit  of  the  Christian 

1  John  xv  1,2,  5-7.  2  John  xiii  34-36. 

3  John  xv  12.  4  Rom.  v  5. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  205 

people,  the  spirit  characterizing  it,  and  analogous  to  the 
national  spirit  in  civil  organization. 

3.  But  our  Lord  likewise  speaks  of  a  third  unity, 
springing  from  the  direction  of  one  and  the  same 
Divine  Spirit.  “  And  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he 
shall  give  you  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may  abide 
with  you  for  ever:  the  Spirit  of  truth,  whom  the  world 
cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  nor  knoweth 
him:  but  you  shall  know  him,  because  he  shall  abide 
with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.”  “  The  Paraclete,  the 
Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
he  will  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to 
your  mind  whatsoever  I  shall  have  said  to  you.”1 
“  It  is  expedient  to  you  that  I  go:  for  if  I  go  not,  the 
Paraclete  will  not  come  to  you;  but  if  I  go,  I  will  send 
him  to  you.”  “  But  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is 
come,  he  will  teach  you  all  truth.  For  he  shall  not 
speak  of  himself,  but  what  things  soever  he  shall  hear, 
he  shall  speak;  and  the  things  that  are  to  come,  he 
shall  show  you.  He  shall  glorify  me,  because  he  shall 
receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  to  you.”2  Of  the 
nature  of  this  unity  we  may  judge  by  the  gifts  and 
offices  assigned  to  that  Spirit  and  Paraclete  from  whom 
it  springs.  Now  he  is  repeatedly  termed,  “  the  Spirit 
of  truth,”  and  his  office,  to  suggest ,  to  announce ,  to 
teach,  and  to  lead  into  all  truth.  This  unity,  therefore, 
is  opposed  to  the  division  produced  by  ignorance  and 
error,  and  so  is  the  unity  of  faith,  or  Christian 
profession.  Thus  our  Lord  promises,  besides  the 
unity  of  charity,  that  of  faith,  the  efficient  principle  of 

1  John  xiv  16-18,  26. 

2  John  xvi  7,  13-15. 


206  st  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

which,  as  well  as  of  the  former,  is  contained  in  the 
communication  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  it  is  no  less 
true  in  the  supernatural  order  of  divine  gifts,  than  in 
the  order  of  nature,  that  the  first  cause  produces  its 
effects  by  means  of  second  causes.  And  here,  as  often 
as  the  Lord  promises  the  Spirit  of  truth,  he  promises 
him  to  the  Apostles ,  and  assures  his  perpetual  abidance 
with  them  and  the  successors  in  their  charge,  thus, 
“  That  he  may  abide  with  you  for  ever  “  He  shall 
abide  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you.”  “  He  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  mind 
which  I  have  said  unto  you  “  Whom  I  will  send 
unto  you  from  the  Father  “I  will  send  him  unto 
you  “  He  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth  “  He  shall 
show  the  things  that  are  to  come.”  And  so  the  unity 
of  faith  may  be  expected  from  its  supreme  cause,  the 
Holy  Spirit  the  Paraclete,  through  the  medium  of  the 
Apostles  and  their  legitimate  successors:  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  its  ultimate ,  but  they  its  subordinate  principle : 
he  is  the  source ,  but  they  the  channel.  Thus  to  trust 
to  the  invisible  action  of  the  Spirit,  but  to  despise  the 
office  and  direction  of  the  teachers  ordained  by  Christ, 
in  the  very  virtue  of  that  Spirit,  is  to  reject  his  divine 
institution,  and  to  risk  a  shipwreck  of  the  promised 
gift  of  faith  and  truth. 

For  in  exact  accordance  with  our  Lord’s  words 
here,  St  Paul  has  set  forth  not  only  the  institution, 
but  the  source,  as  well  as  the  end  and  purpose,  of 
the  whole  visible  hierarchy.  It  is  instituted  by  our 
Lord,  as  an  act  of  his  divine  Headship;  its  source  is  in 
“  one  and  the  same  Spirit  dividing  to  every  one  accord¬ 
ing  as  he  will  ”;  its  end  and  purpose  is,  “  the  edifying 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  207 

the  body  of  Christ,  until  we  all  meet  into  the  unity  of 
faith.”1 

Each  of  these  points  is  important.  Our  Lord’s 
divine  Headship  over  the  Church,  all-encompassing 
as  it  is,  and  the  spring  of  all  blessing  and  unity,  does 
not  dispense  with  the  establishment  of  a  visible 
hierarchy,  but  rather  is  specially  shown  therein.  And 
again,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  source  and  superior 
principle  of  all  spiritual  gifts  to  all,  but  yet  he  acts 
through  this  hierarchy.  He  is  the  Spirit  who  main¬ 
tains  faith  and  truth,  but  it  is  by  the  instruments  of 
his  own  appointing. 

Now  these  three  points,  the  bestowal  of  all  spiritual 
gifts  and  offices  by  Christ  in  virtue  of  his  mystical 
Headship,  the  Holy  Spirit  being  the  one  superior 
principle  of  such  gifts  and  offices,  and  his  manifold 
operation  therein  through  the  visible  hierarchy,  are  set 
forth  most  distinctly  in  two  passages  of  St  Paul,  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  the  fourth  chapter  to  the  Ephesians.  “To  every 
one  of  us  is  given  grace,  according  to  the  measure  of 
the  giving  of  Christ.  Wherefore  he  saith,  Ascending 
on  high  he  led  captivity  captive;  he  gave  gifts  to  men. 
Now  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  because  he  also 
descended  first  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  ? 
He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  above 
all  the  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things.  And  he 
gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  other  some 
evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors  and  doctors,  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  unto  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,  until 

1  1  Cor.  xii  11 ;  Eph.  iv  13. 


208  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

we  all  meet  into  the  unity  of  faith  and  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the 
measure  of  the  age  of  the  fulness  of  Christ ;  that  hence¬ 
forth  we  be  no  more  children  tossed  to  and  fro,  and 
carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine  by  the 
wickedness  of  men,  by  cunning  craftiness  by  which 
they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.  But  doing  the  truth  in 
charity,  we  may  in  all  things  grow  up  in  him  who  is  the 
head,  even  Christ;  from  whom  the  whole  body,  being 
compactly  and  fitly  joined  together,  by  what  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  operation  in  the 
measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  of  the  body, 
unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  charity.”  “  And  the 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  unto 
profit.  To  one  indeed  by  the  Spirit  is  given  the  word 
of  wisdom;  and  to  another  the  word  of  knowledge, 
according  to  the  same  Spirit,  to  another,  faith,  in  the 
same  Spirit;  to  another,  the  grace  of  healing,  in  one 
Spirit;  to  another,  the  working  of  miracles;  to  another, 
prophecy;  to  another,  the  discerning  of  spirits;  to 
another  divers  kinds  of  tongues ;  to  another,  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  speeches.  But  all  these  things  one  and  the 
same  Spirit  worketh,  dividing  to  every  one  according 
as  he  will.  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many 
members;  and  all  the  members  of  the  body,  whereas 
they  are  many,  yet  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ. 
For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one  body, 
whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  bond  or  free,  and  in 
one  Spirit  we  have  all  been  made  to  drink.”1 

Thus,  then,  we  have  been  brought  by  the  words 
both  of  our  Lord  and  of  St  Paul,  through  an  inward 
1  Eph.  iv  7-16;  1  Cor.  xii  7-13. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  209 

invisible  unity,  that  of  mystical  influx  from  the  vine 
to  its  branches,  and  again,  that  of  charity,  and  that  of 
faith  and  truth,  to  an  outward  and  visible  unity  in 
social  organization.  The  great  Head  has  created  it 
for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting,  defending,  maintaining, 
and  conveying  the  former,  since  it  is  expressly  said  that 
he  gave  it  “  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  unto  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ,”  and  in  order  that  “  we  may  be  no  more 
children  tossed  to  and  fro,  and  carried  about  by  every 
wind  of  doctrine.”  And  the  inward  source  and  cause 
of  this  unity  are  indeed  invisible,  being  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  God,  sent  down  by  Christ,  when  he  ascended  up 
on  high,  to  dwell  permanently  among  men;  but  its 
effects  are  external  and  most  visible,  even  the  growth 
of  a  body  “  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of 
the  age  of  the  fulness  of  Christ,”  a  body  which  has  an 
orderly  arrangement  of  all  its  parts,  and  a  hierarchy 
of  officers  to  continue  till  the  end  of  all.  And  the 
function  of  this  hierarchy  is  one  never  to  be  superseded, 
and  which  none  but  itself,  the  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
can  perform — namely,  to  bring  its  members  “  to  meet 
in  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God.”  As  our  Lord  says,  in  the  promise, 
before  his  Passion,  “  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
give  you  (the  Apostles)  another  Paraclete,  that  he  may 
abide  with  you  for  ever,  the  Spirit  of  Truth,”  so 
St  Paul  of  the  accomplishment  after  his  ascension, 
“  He  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  other 
some  evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors  and  doctors,” 
yet  “  all  these  things  worketh  one  and  the  same  Spirit.” 
For  as  the  divine  Head  took  to  himself  a  body,  bridging 

14 


210 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


thereby  the  worlds  of  matter  and  of  spirit,  and  as  “  in 
him  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  corporally ,” 
so  in  his  Church,  in  perfect  analogy  with  the  Archetype, 
the  visible  is  the  channel  of  the  invisible,  and  the 
outward  organization  is  instinct  with  inward  life,  and 
the  hierarchy  is  the  gift  of  the  mystical  Head,  and  the 
instrument  of  the  one  sanctifying  Spirit.  To  think 
otherwise,  to  disregard  the  external  framework,  under 
a  pretence  of  exalting  the  inward  spirit,  is  to  undo  so 
far  the  work  of  Incarnation,  and  to  renew  the  insanity 
of  those  early  heretics  who  in  one  way  or  another  would 
“  dissolve  ”  Christ;  for  there  is  no  less  “  one  Body/* 
than  there  is  “  one  Spirit.” 

But  if  his  headship  of  mystical  influx  is  alone  and 
immediately  sufficient,  as  is  so  often  objected,  for  the 
maintenance  of  external  unity,  to  what  end  is  the 
creation  of  this  visible  hierarchy  ?  For  the  objection 
that  the  invisible  Headship  of  Christ  renders  a  visible 
headship  unnecessary,  and  indeed  an  infringement  on 
his  sole  divine  prerogative,  whatever  force  it  may  have, 
tells  not  more  against  an  oecumenical  head  of  the  Church 
than  against  every  order  and  officer  of  the  hierarchy. 
These  all,  and  with  them  the  whole  system  of  sacra¬ 
ments  as  well  as  symbols,  become  alike  unnecessary 
and  even  injurious,  if  each  member  of  the  mystical 
body  be  knit  to  Christ  immediately  without  any  outward 
framework.  And  with  what  face  especially  can  those 
maintain  that  the  bishop  is  the  visible  head  of  each 
diocese,  and  in  being  such  does  not  contradict,  but 
illustrate,  the  Headship  of  Christ,  who  yet  deny  that 
there  is  one  in  the  whole  Church  put  in  the  like  place 
over  bishops,  and  see  in  such  an  appointment  an 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


21 1 


infringement  on  the  office  of  Christ  ?  Such  an  argu¬ 
ment  is  so  profoundly  illogical  and  inconsistent,  that 
one  has  difficulty  in  believing  it  to  be  seriously  held,  or 
is  hopeless  of  bringing  conviction  to  those  who  cannot 
see  an  absurdity. 

Let  those,  then,  who  confound  together  the  supreme 
Headship  of  Christ  over  his  Church,  whereby  he  com¬ 
municates  to  it  life  and  grace,  with  the  inferior  and 
subordinate  headship  of  external  unity,  see  to  what 
their  objection  tends.  It  stops  at  nothing  short  of 
destroying  the  whole  visible  hierarchy  and  the  sacra¬ 
mental  grace  of  which  it  is  the  channel.  Holy 
Scripture,  on  the  contrary,  tells  us  in  these  passages 
that  the  providence  by  which  the  Church  is  governed 
resembles  that  by  which  this  outward  universe  is  ruled, 
in  the  subordination  of  second  causes  to  the  supreme 
cause.  Christ  repeats  as  Redeemer  his  work  as 
Creator,  to  give  life  and  force  to  these  second  causes, 
and  while  he  works  in  the  members  of  his  body  both 
“  to  will  and  to  do,”  bestows  on  them  the  privilege 
of  co-operating  with  him.  Thus  the  dignity  of  supreme 
Head  which  belongs  to  Christ,  and  is  incommunicable, 
no  more  takes  away  the  ministry  of  the  external  head 
who  is  charged  with  the  office  of  effecting  and  main¬ 
taining  unity,* than  it  impedes  the  ministry  of  “  apostles, 
prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and  doctors,”  to  whom 
Christ  entrusted  the  Church,  that  by  their  means  it 
might  be  brought  to  sanctity  and  perfection. 

4.  And  these  words"  bring  us  to  the  fourth  unity 
mentioned  by  our  Lord.  For  not  until  “  he  ascended 
up  on  high  ”  did  “  he  give  gifts  to  men.”  And  this 
visible  hierarchy,  the  sign  and  token  of  his  mystical 


212 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Headship  and  fostering  care,  is  by  him  quickened  and 
informed  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  he  is  himself 
invisible  at  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  of  God. 
This  absence,  too,  is  what  he  foretold,  saying,  “  And 
now  I  am  not  in  the  world,  and  these  are  in  the  world, 
and  I  come  to  thee;  Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  thy 
name  whom  thou  hast  given  me ;  that  they  may  be  one, 
as  we  also  are.  While  I  was  with  them,  I  kept  them 
in  thy  name.  .  .  .  And  now  I  come  to  thee.”  These 
words  of  our  Lord  show  that  it  was  his  will  that  his 
believers  should  be  no  less  one  among  each  other,  by 
an  outward  and  visible  union,  than  they  were  one  by 
the  internal  bond  of  charity,  the  guidance  of  one  Spirit 
of  Truth,  and  the  influx  of  the  one  Vine.  And  so  far 
we  have  seen  that  to  guard  and  maintain  that  unity 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  he  called 
forth  the  visible  hierarchy,  in  all  its  degrees.  But 
what,  then,  was  the  external  root  and  efficient  principle 
of  this  visible  hierarchy,  when  he  was  gone  to  the 
Father  ?  Did  he  not  likewise  provide  for  the  loss 
occasioned  by  his  own  absence,  which  he  had  foretold  ? 
The  argument  of  St  Paul  proves  that  he  did  so  provide, 
as  well  as  his  own  words.  For  St  Paul  declares  the 
Church  to  be  “  one  Body.”  Was  it  then  a  body  with¬ 
out  a  head,  or  a  body  with  a  head  invisible  ?  Or  did 
the  Lord  of  all,  having  with  complete  wisdom  framed 
his  mystical  body  in  all  its  parts  and  proportions,  and 
having  set  first  Apostles,  and  then,  in  their  various 
degrees,  doctors  and  pastors,  in  one  single,  and  that 
the  main  point,  reverse  the  analogy  of  all  his  doings  ? 
Did  he  appoint  every  officer  in  his  household,  except 
the  one  who  should  rule  all  ?  Did  he  construct  the 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  213 

entire  arch,  save  only  the  keystone  ?  Did  he  make 
a  bishop  to  represent  his  person,  and  be  the  centre  of 
visible  unity  in  every  diocese,  but  none  to  represent 
that  person  in  the  highest  degree  and  to  be  the  centre 
of  unity  to  the  whole  Church  ?  Was  it  the  end  of  his 
whole  design  “  to  gather  together  in  one  the  children  of 
God,  that  were  dispersed,  “  in  order  that  there  might 
be  “  One  Fold,”  and  did  he  fail  to  add  “  One  Shep¬ 
herd  ”?  Yet  St  Paul  declares  that  “  there  are  many 
members,  but  one  body.”  How  can  the  distinct  and 
diverse  members  be  reduced  to  the  unity  of  a  body, 
but  by  the  unity  of  the  head,  as  the  efficient  principle  ? 
In  accordance  with  which  we  may  observe  that  never 
is  the  image  of  a  body  used  in  Scripture  to  represent 
the  Church,  but  it  is  thereby  shown  to  be  visible;  and 
never  is  it  compared  with  a  body  as  a  type,  unless  that 
body  is  shown  complete  with  its  head.  Such  are  the 
well-known  images  of  one  House,  Kingdom,  City, 
Fold,  and  Temple,  to  which  we  have  had  so  often  to 
appeal.  Even  the  unity  of  things  in  themselves 
t  dissimilar  is  derived  in  Scripture  from  the  unity  of 
the  Head.  Thus  the  man  and  the  woman  are  said  in 
marriage  to  be  one,  and  that  in  a  great  mystery,  repre¬ 
senting  Christ  and  the  Church,  but  this  because  “  the 
husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife.”  And  Christ  is  said 
to  be  one  with  the  faithful,  because  “  the  head  of  every 
man  is  Christ  ”:  and  God  one  with  Christ,  because 
“  the  head  of  Christ  is  God.”  If,  then,1  the  Church 
is  one  body,  it  receives,  according  to  the  reasoning  of 
Holy  Scripture,  that  property  from  the  unity  of  its 
head. 


1  Passaglia,  p.  254. 


214  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Now,  such  a  one  body,  while  yet  militant  upon 
earth,  St  Paul  declares  it  to  be,  setting  forth  at  the  same 
time  the  various  orders  of  its  hierarchy.  Is  it,  then, 
a  body  complete  or  incomplete  ?  With  a  head  or 
without  one  ?  For  it  is  no  reply  to  say  that  it  has  indeed 
a  head,  but  one  invisible.  That  invisible  headship 
did  not  obviate,  as  we  have  seen,  the  necessity  of  a 
visible  hierarchy :  why  then  does  it  obviate  the  like  and 
even  more  striking  necessity,  that  the  hierarchy  too 
must  have  its  visible  head  ?  If  it  was,  so  to  say,  the 
very  first  act  of  our  Lord’s  supreme  headship  over 
all  to  the  Church — the  very  token  that  he  had  led 
captivity  captive  to  quicken  the  visible  ministry  which 
he  had  established  by  sending  down  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  abide  with  it  for  ever,  is  the  one  place  most  necessary 
in  that  ministry  to  be  the  only  one  left  vacant  by  him  ? 
Is  the  one  officer  most  fully  representing  himself  to  be 
alone  omitted  ?  “  The  perfecting  of  the  saints  ”  (a 

metaphor  taken,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the  exact  fitting 
together  of  the  stones  in  a  building),  and  “  the  edifying 
of  the  body  of  Christ,”  are  described  as  the  end  to  be 
reached  by  those  to  whom  “  the  work  of  the  ministry  ” 
is  committed;  but  as  this  applies  in  a  higher  degree 
to  the  bishop  than  to  the  priest,  so  it  applies  in  the 
highest  of  all  to  the  Bishop  of  bishops. 

Again,  God’s  method  of  teaching  by  symbols,  which 
runs  through  the  whole  Scripture,  and  the  institution 
of  Sacraments,  proves  to  us  his  will  to  lead  us  on  from 
the  visible  to  the  invisible,  and  to  make  the  former  a 
channel  to  the  latter.  For  “  we  are  all  baptized  into 
one  body,”  and  the  outward  act  both  images  and  con¬ 
veys  the  inward  privilege.  And  again  in  the  highest 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  215 

conceivable  instance,  “  because  the  bread  is  one,  we 
being  many  are  one  body,  who  all  partake  of  that  one 
bread.”1  In  like  manner  the  outward  unity  of  the 
Church  must  accurately  represent,  and  answer  to  the 
inward,  which,  we  know,  is  derived  from  the  Person  of 
Christ,  who  is  its  Head.  And  so  that  Person  must  be 
specially  represented  in  the  outward  unity. 

And  this  is  one  reason  why  no  unity  of  a  college, 
whether  of  Apostles  or  of  bishops,  will  adequately 
express  that  visible  headship  of  which  our  Lord’s 
Person  is  the  exemplar.  For  the  root  of  all  lies  in  a 
personal  unity,  that  of  the  Godhead  and  Manhood, 
and  therefore  a  merely  collective  or  representative 
unity  cannot  express  it.  And  if  the  Apostle  wrote, 
“  God  hath  set  in  the  Church  first  Apostles,”  yet  he 
also  wrote  that  the  grand  result,  “  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  and  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ,”  was 
due  to  the  ministry,  not  only  of  Apostles,  but  of 
prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  and  doctors,  each  in  their 
degree;  they  all  conspire  to  a  joint  action,  which  does 
not  impede  the  existence  of  distinct  orders  in  the 
hierarchy.  And  his  expression  that  the  Apostles  are 
first  in  this  hierarchy  without  defining  their  mutual 
relations  to  each  other,  does  not  exclude  those  other 
passages  of  Scripture  which  do  define  those  relations, 
and  which  make  Peter  among  the  Apostles  “  the 
First,”  “  the  Ruler,”  “  the  Greater,”  the  Judah  among 
his  brethren,  the  foundation  of  the  whole  building,  and 
the  one  shepherd  in  the  universal  fold.  And  the  more 
so  because  St  Paul  uses  three  expressions  of  the 
Church,  two  of  which  are  relative ,  but  one  absolute. 

1  1  Cor.  x  17. 


21 6  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

He  calls  it  “  the  body  of  Christ,”  and  “  Christ,”  which 
are  relative;  but  he  also  calls  it  “  one  body,”  which  is 
absolute.  Now,  these  expressions  are  not  to  be  severed 
from  each  other,  as  if  each  by  itself  would  convey  the 
whole  idea  of  the  Church,  which  rather  is  to  be  drawn 
from  them  altogether.  In  answer  to  what  the  Church 
is,  we  must  not  say  that  it  is  either  “  the  body  of 
Christ,”  or  mystically  called  “  Christ,”  or  set  before 
us  as  “  one  body,”  for  it  is  all  of  these  at  once,  rela¬ 
tively  “  Christ,”  and  “  the  body  of  Christ,”  and  abso¬ 
lutely  “  one  body.” 

As,  then,  the  former  expressions  show  that  the 
Church  is  one  in  reference  to  Christ ,  so  the  latter  shows 
that  it  is  so  in  itself  and  simply.  For  as  the  Church 
is  called  “  Christ,”  and  “  the  body  of  Christ,”  because 
it  is  one  with  Christ  by  mystical  union,  drawing  its 
supernatural  life  from  Christ  its  Head,  so  it  is  called 
“  one  body,”  because  in  the  variety  of  members  and 
parts,  of  which  it  consists,  no  one  is  wanting  to  its 
being  one  body  in  itself,  and  to  its  being  seen  to  be 
such.  But  it  would  neither  be  so,  nor  seem  to  be  so, 
if  it  were  without  a  visible  head,  the  origin  and  principle 
of  its  inherent  visible  unity.  And  so  where  the  Church 
is  called  by  St  Paul  “  one  body,”  he  declares  that  it 
has  a  visible  head. 

Thus  it  is  that  the  inherent  notion  of  the  Church, 
as  one  visible  body,  and  the  whole  dispensation  by 
which  visible  things  answer  to  invisible,  as  their  arche¬ 
types,  demand  one  visible  head.  Now  to  this  inherent 
necessity  let  us  add  the  force  of  positive  teaching. 
When  our  Lord  in  almost  his  last  words  to  his  Church 
prays  to  his  Father,  “  While  I  was  with  them  in  the 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  217 

world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name — but  now  I  come  to 
thee,”  does  he  not  suggest  the  appointment  of  another 
visible  head  to  take  that  place  which  he  was  leaving  ? 
And  further,  does  he  not  name  one  to  that  high  dignity, 
when  he  calls  him  “  the  Greater,”  and  “  the  Ruler  ” 
among  his  brethren,  committing  them  to  him  to  be 
confirmed  by  him,  and  making  him  the  shepherd  of  the 
whole  flock  ?  What  else  had  he  done  but  prepare  them 
for  such  a  nomination,  when  he  promised  one  that  he 
should  be  the  foundation  of  his  Church  and  the  bearer 
of  the  keys  ?  .  What  else  did  Christians  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  see  in  such  a  one,  when  they  called  him  the 
head ,  the  centre ,  the  fountain ,  the  root,  the  principle , 
of  ecclesiastical  unity  ? 

Let  us  remark,  once  more,  as  a  confirmation  of  the 
above,  that  the  archetype  of  visible  unity  in  the  Church, 
which  our  Lord  sets  before  us  in  his  prayer  to  the 
Father,  is  no  other  than  that  most  high  and  solemn  of 
all  things  conceivable,  the  mutual  indwelling  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  “  Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  thy 
name  whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one, 
as  we  also  are ;”  and  again,  for  all  successive  generations 
of  the  faithful,  “  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be 
one  in  us,  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast 
sent  me.”  Now,  the  relation  established  by  our  Lord 
between  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  by  appoint¬ 
ing  him  the  visible  head  of  the  Church,  and  between 
Peter’s  successor  and  all  bishops,  does  represent,  so 
far  as  earthly  things  may,  and  in  a  degree  which  nothing 
else  on  earth  reaches  to,  the  mutual  relation  of  the  three 
divine  Persons  to  each  other.  For  as  these  are  distinct, 


218  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


but  inseparable,  so,  too,  are  the  Apostles.  As  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  is  first  in  the  Father  and  then 
in  the  Son  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  the  fulness  of 
power  first  promised  and  given  to  Peter,  is  then  pro¬ 
pagated  to  the  other  Apostles  united  with  him.  As 
in  the  Father  the  economy  of  the  divine  Persons  is 
summed  up  under  one  head  and  gathered  into  a 
monarchy,  so  in  Peter  is  gathered  up  the  fulness  of 
ecclesiastical  power,  which,  through  union  with  him, 
is  one  in  all,  as  the  Church  is  one,  and  the  Episcopate 
one.  Moreover,  as  it  is  the  dignity  of  the  Father  to 
be  the  exemplar,  principle,  root,  and  fountain  of  unity 
in  the  Trinity,  so  is  it  the  dignity  of  Peter  to  be  the 
exemplar,  principle,  root,  and  fountain  of  visible  unity 
in  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  the  Church.  This 
is  alluded  to  by  Pope  Symmachus,  thirteen  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago:  “  There  is  one  single  priesthood 
in  the  different  prelates  (of  the  Apostolic  See),  after 
the  example  of  the  Trinity,  whose  power  is  one  and 
indivisible.”1  And  long  before  him  St  Cyprian: 
“  The  Lord  says,  ‘  I  and  the  Father  are  one/  And 
again  it  is  written  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  ‘  And  these  three  are  one/  Is  there  a 
man  who  believes  that  this  unity,  coming  from  the 
divine  solidity,  cohering  by  heavenly  sacraments,  can 
possibly  be  broken  in  the  Church,  and  torn  asunder 
by  the  collision  of  adverse  wills  ?  This  unity  he  who 
holds  not,  holds  not  the  law  of  God,  holds  not  the 
faith  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  holds  not  the  truth 
unto  salvation.”2 

1  Mansi,  Concil,,  tom.  8,  208. 

2  St  Cyprian,  de  Unitate. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  219 

Whereas,  then,  all  unity  in  the  Body  of  Christ,  the 
Church,  is  derived  ultimately  from  the  person  of  its 
Head,  the  Word  Incarnate,  that  unity  is  yet  fourfold 
in  its  operation,  and  the  efficient  principle  of  one  sort 
is  not  to  be  confounded  with  that  of  another.  There 
is  the  mystical  unity,  which  consists  in  the  perpetual 
divine  influx  from  the  great  invisible  Head  to  his 
members;  there  is  the  moral  or  spiritual  unity  of 
charity,  consisting  in  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  hearts  of  believers,  and  these  two  are  internal 
and  in  closest  correspondence.  There  are  two  likewise 
external,  which  may  be  called  the  civil  or  political 
unity,  consisting  in  the  public  profession  of  the  same 
faith,  the  same  truth,  for  what  the  law  is  to  temporal 
states,  the  faith  is  to  the  great  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Christ.  This  unity  is  indeed  inspired  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  is  maintained  by  him  through  the  visible 
hierarchy.  Lastly,  correspondent  to  the  unity  of 
faith,  there  is  the  visible  unity  of  external  organization, 
the  immediate  or  efficient  principle  of  which  lies  in 
the  visible  headship  over  the  Church  attached  by  the 
Lord  to  St  Peter’s  chair.  The  latter  two,  while  they 
correspond  to  each  other,  are  indeed  subordinate 
to  the  former,  the  unity  of  faith  to  that  of  charity, 
as  the  unity  of  the  visible  headship  to  that  of  the  in¬ 
visible.  Yet  the  very  truth  of  the  Body  which  the 
Lord  has  assumed,  and  the  whole  analogy  of  his 
dealings  with  men,  and  the  sacraments  whereby  he 
makes  us  “  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,”  warn  us 
that  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  for  us  to  see  how 
external  unity  is  the  channel  of  internal,  and  the  visible 
the  road  to  the  invisible.  No  words  can  be  more 


220 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


emphatic  to  this  effect  than  those  with  which  the 
Apostle  introduces  the  description  of  the  visible 
hierarchy  and  the  divine  headship  which  called  it  forth. 
“  There  is  one  Body  and  one  Spirit,  as  you  are  called 
in  one  hope  of  your  calling.  One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism.  One  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above 
all,  and  through  all,  and  in  us  all.”  From  which  he 
goes  on  to  say,  “  Ascending  up  on  high,  he  gave  gifts 
to  men — some  apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  some 
evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers.”  And 
lastly,  “  the  Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church,”  is 
“  the  Saviour  of  the  Body.”1 

But  if  this  be  so,  we  can  say  nothing  more  highly 
to  exalt  St  Peter’s  office  in  the  Church,  for  he  is  the 
great  bond  and  stay  of  this  outward  unity,  as  even 
enemies2  confess.  As  surely  as  in  a  real  monarchy  the 

1  Eph.  iv  4,  8,  1 1 ;  i  22 ;  v  23. 

2  That  such  was  the  belief  of  the  most  ancient  Fathers, 
Ignatius,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  and  others,  see  a 
most  curious  admission  of  the  Lutheran  Mosheim  in  his 
dissertation,  De  Gallorum  Appellationibus,  etc.,  s.  13.  And 
his  way  of  extricating  himself  is  at  least  as  curious  as  the 
admission.  His  words  are,  “  Cyprian  and  the  rest  cannot 
have  known  the  corollaries  which  follow  from  their  precepts 
about  the  Church.  For  no  one  is  so  dull  as  not  to  see  that 
between  a  certain  unity  of  the  universal  Church,  terminating 
in  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  such  a  community  as  we  have 
described  out  of  Irenaeus  and  Cyprian,  there  is  scarcely  so 
much  room  as  between  hall  and  chamber,  or  between  hand 
and  fingers.  If  the  innocence  of  the  first  ages  stood  in  the 
way  of  their  anticipating  the  snares  which  ignorantly  and 
unintentionally  they  were  laying  against  sacred  liberty,  those 
succeeding  at  least  were  more  sharp-sighted,  and  it  was  not 
long  in  becoming  clear  to  the  pontiffs  what  force  in  establish- 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


221 


person  of  the  sovereign  ties  together  every  part  of  the 
political  edifice,  and  is  endued  with  majesty  because 
he  is  at  once  the  type  of  God,  and  concentrates  in  one 
the  power  and  dignity  of  the  whole  community,  so  it 
is  in  that  divine  structure  in  which  “  the  manifold 
wisdom  of  God  ”  is  disclosed  to  all  creation.  The 
point  of  strength  is  felt  alike  by  friend  and  foe.  On 
the  Rock  of  Peter  has  fallen  every  storm  which  the 
enmity  of  the  evil  one  has  raised  for  eighteen  hundred 
years;  but  yet  the  gates  of  hell  have  not  prevailed 
against  it.  In  the  Rock  of  Peter,  and  the  divine 
promise  attached  to  it,  every  heart  faithful  to  God  and 
the  Church  trusts  now,  as  it  trusted  from  the  beginning. 
Many  temporal  monarchs  in  their  hour  of  pride  have 
risen  against  St  Peter’s  See,  but  the  greatest  of  them 
all* 1  declared  that  no  one  had  ever  gained  honour  or 
victory  in  that  conflict,  and  he  lived  to  be  the  most 
signal  instance  of  his  own  observation.  “  God  is 
patient,  because  he  is  eternal,”  and  the  Holy  See  pre¬ 
vails  in  its  weakness  over  power,  and  in  its  justice  over 
cupidity,  because  while  temporal  dominion  passes 
from  hand  to  hand,  and  stays  not  with  any  nation, 
following  the  gift  of  God  which  the  poet  calls  fortune — 

“Perche  una  gente  impera,  e  l’altra  langue, 

Seguendo  lo  giudizio  di  costei 

Che  e  occulta,  come  in  T  erba  T  angue,” — 2 


ing  their  own  power  and  authority  such  tenets  possessed.” 
So  the  ancient  Fathers  were  not  intelligent  enough  to  see 
that  the  hand  was  joined  to  the  fingers.  But  the  other  alter¬ 
native  was  still  harder  to  Mosheim,  that  Lutheranism  was 
fundamentally  heretical  and  schismatical. 

1  Napoleon.  2  Dante,  Inferno. 


222 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  his  Church, 
lasts  for  ever  and  is  built  upon  the  Rock  of  Peter.  The 
long  line  of  descendants  from  Constantine  and  from 
Charlemagne  have  in  their  turn  impugned  and  illus¬ 
trated  this  glorious  privilege  of  the  Papal  See.  What 
is  there  so  stable  in  an  empire  of  commerce,  or  so  solid 
in  the  nicely  balanced  and  delicate  machinery  of  a 
constitutional  monarchy,  as  to  exempt  them  from  the 
action  of  a  universal  law,  or  to  ensure  their  victory 
in  the  doomed  contest  with  the  Vicar  of  Christ  ? 
Mightier  things  than  they  have  done  their  worst,  have 
oppressed,  triumphed,  and  become  extinct,  and  if  it 
be  allowed  them  in  the  crisis  of  their  trial  to  crucify 
Christ  afresh,  he  will  yet  reign  from  the  Cross,  and 
“  draw  all  men  unto  him.” 


CHAPTER  VIII 


SUMMARY  OF  PROOF  GIVEN  FOR  ST  PETER’S 

PRIMACY 

It  would  now  seem  to  be  made  clear  to  all  that  the 
controversy  on  St  Peter’s  Primacy  relates  generally  to 
the  question  of  inequality  in  the  Apostolic  college,  and 
specially  to  the  question,  whether  Christ,  the  Founder 
of  the  Church,  set  any  one  of  the  Apostles,  and  whom 
of  them  in  particular,  over  the  rest.  For  as,  on  the 
one  hand,  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  the 
superior  dignity  of  the  Primacy,  had  all  the  Apostles 
been  completely  equal,  and  undistinguished  in  honour 
and  authority  from  each  other;  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  is  the  nature  of  the  Primacy  to  be  incapable  of  even 
being  contemplated,  save  as  fixed  on  some  certain 
definite  subject. 

But  to  determine  the  two  questions,  whether  the 
Apostles  stood,  or  did  not  stand,  on  a  complete  equality, 
and  whether  one  of  them  was  superior  to  the  rest  in 
honour  and  dignity,  it  seemed  requisite  to  examine 
chiefly  four  points. 

First,  the  words  and  the  acts  of  Christ  respecting 
the  Apostles. 

Secondly,  his  expressions  which  seemed  to  mark  the 
institution  of  a  singular  authority. 

Thirdly,  the  mode  of  writing  and  speaking  usually 

223 


224  ST  PETER:  his  name  and  his  office 

and  constantly  employed  by  the  Evangelists  and  other 
inspired  writers. 

Lastly,  the  history  of  the  Church,  from  its  beginning, 
from  which  might  be  drawn  conjectures,  or  even 
certain  proofs,  of  the  power  which  either  all  the 
Apostles  had  exercised  equally,  or  one  had  held  above 
the  rest. 

For  should  it  become  plain,  from  the  agreement  of 
these  four  sources,  that  a  certain  one  of  the  Apostles, 
and  that  one  Simon  Peter,  had  been  distinguished  from 
the  rest  by  the  acts  and  words  of  Christ,  and  set  over 
the  Apostles;  had  been  invariably  described  by  the 
inspired  writers  as  the  Head  and  supreme  authority; 
and,  in  the  history  of  the  rising  Church,  been  portrayed 
in  a  way  which  could  only  befit  the  universal  ruler,  no 
difficulty  would  remain,  and  there  would  be  arguments 
abundant  to  prove  that  Christ  was  the  author  both  of 
the  inequality  among  the  Apostles,  and  of  Peter’s 
Primacy. 

Now  we  seem  to  have  proved  absolutely  what  we 
proposed  hypothetically.  For  we  have  shown  that 
Christ  declared  by  his  whole  method  of  acting,  and  by 
solemn  words  and  deeds,  that  he  did  not  account  Peter 
as  one  of  the  rest,  but  as  their  Leader,  Chief,  and  Head. 

We  have  shown  it  to  have  been  the  will  of  Christ  to 
concentrate  in  Peter  the  distinctions  which  belong  to 
himself,  as  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Church.  For  such 
must  be  deemed  the  properties  of  being  the  Founda¬ 
tion,  the  Bearer  of  the  keys,  the  Holder  of  universal 
authority,  the  Supporter,  and  lastly,  the  Chief  Shep¬ 
herd.  Of  these  there  is  no  one  which  he  did  not 
promise  to  Peter  singly,  and  confer  on  Peter  singly: 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  225 


no  one  with  which  he  did  not  associate  Peter,  and  Peter 
only,  in  making  him  the  foundation  of  his  Church,  be¬ 
stowing  on  him  the  keys  and  universal  power  of  binding 
and  loosing,  in  setting  him  over  his  brethren  to  confirm 
them,  and  over  his  fold  as  universal  Pastor. 

We  have  shown  that  the  Evangelists  place  almost 
the  same  distinction  between  the  Apostles  and  Peter, 
as  between  Peter  and  Christ,  while  still  among  us. 
For  as  they  set  forth  Peter  as  second  after  Christ,  so 
do  they  subject  the  Apostles  to  Peter;  as  the  acts  and 
words  of  Christ  occupy  the  foreground  in  respect  to 
those  of  Peter,  so  do  his  in  respect  to  those  of  the 
Apostles ;  as  Christ,  in  their  histories,  is  pre-eminent 
above  Peter,  so  is  Peter  more  conspicuous  than  the 
Apostles;  and  as  the  Gospels  cannot  be  read  without 
seeing  in  them  Christ  as  the  prototype,  so  neither  can 
they  without  seeing  that  Peter  approaches  the  nearest 
to  Christ. 

We  have  shown  that  St  Paul  spoke  of  St  Peter  in  no 
other  way  than  the  Evangelists,  and  that  his  pre¬ 
eminence  is  evident  in  St  Paul’s  Epistles,  as  well  as  in 
the  Gospels. 

Lastly,  we  have  shown  that  Peter  shines  as  the 
superior  luminary  in  the  history  of  the  rising  Church. 
The  lustre  of  his  deeds  in  the  Acts  recalls  that  of  Christ 
in  the  Gospels.  In  the  Gospels  Christ  is  named  by 
far  most  frequently ;  in  the  Acts  no  one  occurs  so  often 
as  Peter.  The  discourses,  the  acts,  the  miracles  of 
Christ  occupy  every  page  of  the  Gospels;  and  in  that 
portion  of  the  Acts  which  embraces  the  history  of  the 
whole  Church,  a  very  large  part  has  reference  to  the 
discourses,  the  acts,  and  the  miracles  of  Peter.  In  the 

15 


226  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Gospels,  Christ  leads,  the  Apostles  follow;  in  the  Acts, 
Peter  takes  the  precedence,  the  Apostles  attend  him. 
In  the  Gospels,  Christ  teaches,  and  the  Apostles,  in 
silence,  consent ;  in  the  Acts,  Peter  alone  makes  speeches, 
and  explains  the  doctrine  of  salvation ;  the  Apostles  by 
their  silence  consent.  In  the  Gospels,  Christ  pro¬ 
vides  for  the  Apostolic  college,  guards  it  from  injury, 
defends  it  when  attacked;  in  the  Acts,  Peter  provides 
for  filling  up  the  place  of  Judas,  determines  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  eligibility,  enjoins  the  election,  and  defends 
the  Apostles  before  people,  rulers,  and  chief  priests, 
in  quality  of  their  head. 

Moreover,  he  alone  is  pre-eminent  in  exercising  the 
triple  power  of  authoritative  Teacher ,  Judge ,  and 
Legislator.  Of  authoritative  Teacher ,  not  only  towards 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  whom  he  is  the  first  to  join  to  Christ, 
so  that  the  same  person  who  was  the  Church’s  rock 
and  foundation  also  became  its  chief  architect;  but 
towards  the  Apostles  likewise.  They  are  taught  by  his 
ministry  that  the  time  was  come  for  the  blessing  of 
redemption  to  be  extended  no  less  to  Gentiles  than  to 
Jews,  and  that  the  burden  of  legal  rites  could  not  be  laid 
on  the  Gentile  converts  without  tempting  God.  Of 
Judge ,  because,  while  the  Apostles  are  silent,  he  is  the 
first  to  hear  the  causes  of  the  faithful,  to  erect  a  tribunal 
to  examine  the  accused,  to  issue  sentence,  and  to 
support  and  confirm  it  by  inflicting  excommunication. 
Of  Head  and  Supreme  Legislator ,  both  when  he  singly 
visits  Christians  in  all  parts,  and  provides  for  their 
needs,  or  when  he  uses  the  prerogative  of  first  voting, 
and  draws  with  authority  the  wording  of  the  law  to 
which  the  rest  are  to  give  a  unanimous  consent. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  227 

From  this  compendious  enumeration  we  draw  a 
multifold  proof,  both  of  inequality  in  the  Apostolic 
college,  and  of  Peter’s  superiority  at  once  in  rank  and 
in  real  government. 

I.  For,  first ,  a  college  cannot  be  considered  equal, 
out  of  which  Christ  chose  one,  Simon  Peter,  whom, 
by  his  words  and  his  actions,  he  showed  to  be  set  over 
all.  Now,  Christ’s  whole  course  of  speaking  and 
acting,  of  which  the  Gospels  give  us  the  picture,  tends 
to  exhibit  Peter  as  chosen  out  from  the  rest  and  set  over 
them.  Accordingly,  neither  is  the  college  of  the  Apostles 
equal,  nor  can  Peter  be  accounted  as  one  of  the  rest. 

II.  Again,  one  who  has  received  all  in  common  with 
the  rest,  but  much  besides  peculiar  to  himself,  special 
and  distinguishing,  must  seem  to  be  taken  out  of  the 
common  number.  Now,  such  must  Peter  have  been 
among  the  Apostles,  since  Christ  granted  nothing  to 
them  which  he  denied  to  Peter,  but  did  grant  to  Peter 
many  most  distinguishing  gifts  which  he  gave  not  to 
the  rest. 

III.  And,  further,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Foundation 
and  the  Superstructure,  the  Bearer  of  the  keys,  and 
those  who  inhabit  the  house  or  city  whose  keys  he 
bears,  the  Confirmer,  and  those  whom  he  is  to  confirm, 
the  universal  Pastor,  and  the  sheep  committed  to  his 
charge,  cannot  be  comprehended  under  the  same  order 
and  rank.  Now  the  distinctions  expressed  by  the 
terms  Foundation,  Bearer  of  the  keys,  Confirmer,  and 
universal  Pastor,  are  Peter’s  official  insignia  in  reference 
to,  and  over,  the  Apostles  themselves.  His  distinction 
from  them,  therefore,  and  the  inequality  of  the  Apostolic 
college,  are  plain. 


228  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Perhaps  this  may  be  put  somewhat  otherwise  even 
more  clearly.  And  so,  IV.  Let  it  be  first  considered, 
what  is  plain  in  itself,  that  a  distinction  carrying  pre¬ 
eminence  depends  on  distinction  in  perfection  and 
gifts,  and  follows  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  from  the 
greater  or  less  inequality  of  these,  or  in  case  of  their 
parity  exists  not  at  all.  Next,  be  what  we  hold  both  of 
reason  and  of  faith  remembered,  that  “  every  best  gift 
and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  coming  down  from 
the  Father  of  lights,”  that  God  is  the  fountain-head 
of  all  good,  and  that  all  gifts  whatsoever  flow  over  from 
him  to  his  creatures.  From  both  points  it  follows 
that  the  amount  of  the  creature’s  dignity  and  perfection 
lies  in  the  participation  of  divine  goods,  and  is  greater 
or  less  in  proportion  to  the  participation  and  associa¬ 
tion  with  divine  goods.  So,  then,  the  controversy 
on  Peter’s  Primacy  and  the  inequality  of  the  Apostolic 
college,  comes  ultimately  to  this:  whether  Christ ,  the 
God-man ,  associated  Peter  singly ,  above  all ,  with  himself , 
in  the  possession  of  those  properties  on  account  of  which 
he  stands  himself  related  to  the  Church  as  its  supreme 
Ruler.  For  let  it  be  once  evident  that  Christ  did  so, 
and  it  will  of  necessity  be  evident  also,  not  only  that 
Peter  was  preferred  to  all,  but  wherein  his  leadership 
and  headship  consisted.  And  since  we  have  made 
the  inquiry,  there  is  abundant  evidence  to  prove  that 
Christ  really  did  associate  Peter  singly  in  five  pro¬ 
perties,  which,  belonging  to  himself  primarily  and 
chiefly ,  contain  the  special  cause  for  which  he  is  the 
Prince  and  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church. 

For,  in  truth,  it  is  specially  due  to  the  properties 
and  distinctions  of  Foundation ,  Bearer  of  the  keys , 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  229 

Establisher ,  Chief  Shepherd ,  and  Lord ,  who  has  received 
all  authority  from  the  Father,  that  the  Church  has  an 
entire  dependence  on  Christ,  is  subject  to  him,  and  that 
he  enjoys  over  the  Church  the  right  and  authority  of 
Supreme  Lord  and  Ruler.  But  which  of  these  pro¬ 
perties  did  he  not  choose  to  communicate  to  Peter, 
according  to  the  degree  in  which  they  were  com¬ 
municable  ?  He  bestowed  them  all  upon  Peter,  and 
upon  Peter  alone,  so  that  Peter  also  is  termed  the 
Foundation ,  the  Bearer  of  the  keys ,  the  Confirmer ,  the 
universal  Pastor ,  and  the  Chief 1  of  the  whole  Church. 
We  see,  therefore,  a  remarkable  proof  of  Peter  being 
distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  and  set 
over  them,  in  his  singular  and  special  association  with 
these  gifts. 

Again,  V.,  to  this  tends  that  disposition  of  divine 
wisdom  which  provides  that  Peter  holds  in  the  Church, 
and  among  the  Apostles,  a  rank  of  dignity  greatly 
resembling  that  which  Abraham  among  the  Patriarchs, 
and  Judah  among  his  brethren,  received  from  God. 
The  former  of  these  relations  has  been  exhibited,  and 
shown  not  to  be  arbitrarily  conceived,  but  grounded 
on  due  proof.  The  latter  will  be  presently  further 
touched  upon.  Now  who  shall  deny  Abraham  that 
superiority  whereby  he  was  made  the  Father  and 
Teacher  of  all  the  faithful,  or  strip  Judah  of  the  dignity 
in  which  he  excelled  his  brethren,  and  was  in  many 
points  preferred  to  them  ?  As  little  may  any  one  strip 

1  riyoti/ievos,  Luke  xxii  26,  the  very  term  still  given  in 
the  East  to  the  head  of  a  religious  community;  and  also,  as 
has  been  said,  that  which  marks  our  Lord  in  the  great 
prophecy  of  Micah,  recorded  in  Matt,  ii  6. 


230  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Peter  of  his  authority  as  supreme  teacher,  and  take 
from  him  those  singular  endowments  which  make  Irm 
“  the  Greater  one  ”  among  his  brethren  and  Apostles. 

Especially  as,  VI.,  this  authority  of  Peter  is  clearly 
confirmed  by  the  mode  of  writing  usual  to  the  Evange¬ 
lists.  For  it  is  monstrous  and  preposterous  to  con¬ 
found  with  the  rest  one  whom  the  Evangelists  con¬ 
stantly  distinguish  and  prefer  to  all.  For  what  more 
could  they  do  to  show  their  purpose  to  distinguish 
Peter,  select  him  from  the  rest,  and  place  him  at  all 
times  before  all  the  Apostles  ?  We  may  venture  to 
say  that  they  omitted  nothing  to  this  end.  And  so  it  is 
absurd  to  doubt  of  Peter’s  prerogatives,  or  set  him  on 
the  same  footing  with  the  rest. 

For,  indeed,  VII.,  no  one  would  endure  it  to  be 
denied,  from  the  usual  mode  of  writing  of  the  Evange¬ 
lists,  that  Christ  was  pre-eminent  among  the  Apostles 
as  their  Supreme  Head,  and  was  removed  from  them 
in  dignity  by  an  infinite  interval.  Now,  though  the 
Evangelists  do  not  give  Peter  all  things,  nor  in  the  same 
degree,  yet  they  do  give  1dm  much,  and  in  a  degree  not 
dissimilar,  to  distinguish  him  from  the  rest,  showing 
him,  as  in  a  nearer  relation  to  Christ,  so  proportionably 
exalted  above  the  other  Apostles. 

And  this  proof,  VIII.,  is  the  more  persuasive  be¬ 
cause  St  Paul  follows  the  very  same  mode  of  speaking 
as  the  Evangelists.  For  in  repeatedly  mentioning 
St  Peter  in  his  Epistles,  he  always  gives  him  the  place 
of  honour,  and  joins  him  as  near  as  may  be  with  Christ. 
Who,  then,  can  doubt  Peter  held  a  certain  pre-eminent 
rank  ? 

And  the  more,  IX.,  because  what  is  read  in  the  Acts, 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  231 

and  the  view  of  primitive  history  therein  contained 
looks  the  same  way,  and  seems  set  forth  with  the  same 
purpose.  For  if  you  compare  together  the  Acts  and 
the  Gospels,  the  mind  at  once  suggests  that  the  position 
of  Prototype  which  Christ  holds  in  the  Gospels,  belongs 
to  Peter  in  the  Acts,  and  that  Peter  seems  distinguished 
above  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Acts,  as  Christ  is 
pre-eminent  far  above  all  in  the  Gospels.  Now  what 
is  the  result  of  so  apparent  a  likeness  ?  What  is  it 
fair  to  deduce  from  such  a  bearing  in  the  Evangelical 
and  Apostolical  history  ?  Those  who  are  obedient  to 
reasoning,  and  follow  the  bright  torch  of  the  Scriptures, 
must  confess  with  us  that  in  this  parallelism  of  both 
histories,  and  so  of  Christ  and  Peter,  is  contained  a 
mark  and  sign,  proving  that  Peter  follows  next  after 
Christ  in  dignity  and  authority. 

X.  In  authority,  I  repeat,  and,  therefore,  in  that 
kind  of  superiority  which  very  far  surpasses  the  limits 
of  precedence  and  order.  For  what  are  the  grounds 
on  which  we  see  Peter’s  eminence  in  the  Acts,  or  a 
resemblance  between  the  Acts  when  speaking  of  Peter, 
and  the  Gospels  when  speaking  of  Christ  ?  Chiefly 
these,  that  Peter  is  set  forth  as  remarkable,  singly, 
above  all,  for  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  triple  power 
of  Judge,  Legislator,  and  authoritative  Teacher.  Now, 
the  superiority  herein  asserted  not  merely  distinguishes 
Peter  from  the  rest,  but  attaches  to  him  a  greater 
authority  over  the  rest. 

XI.  And,  indeed,  propose  an  hypothesis  which  is 
necessary  to  solve  a  complex  and  undoubted  series  of 
facts;  such  an  hypothesis  is  thereby  made  a  certainty. 
At  least  these  are  the  principles  of  philosophy,  from 


232  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

which  the  laws  of  reasoning  will  not  allow  us  to  depart. 
Now,  Peter’s  pre-eminence  and  supremacy  are  such  an 
hypothesis,  without  which  you  can  render  no  sufficient 
cause  of  the  facts  narrated  in  the  first  twelve  chapters 
of  the  Acts.  Accordingly,  this  supremacy  of  Peter 
may  be  considered  as  proved. 

XII.  Or  to  put  the  argument  somewhat  differently, 
thus:  As  the  existence  of  causes  is  deduced,  a  posteriori , 
from  effects,  so  it  is  perfectly  established,  a  priori , 
whenever  the  series  and  sum  of  effects,  of  which  the 
senses  are  cognizant,  are  foretold  from  it  with  certainty. 
We  deduce  the  force  of  gravity  necessarily  from  its 
effects,  a  posteriori ,  yet  we  likewise  determine  it  to 
exist,  with  a  judgement  no  less  invariable,  a  priori , 
when  it  is  such  that  we  do  not  merely  guess  at,  but 
certainly  anticipate  its  sensible  effects.  Now,  Peter’s 
supremacy  is  not  inaptly  compared  with  this  very  force 
of  gravity.  For  it  is  a  characteristic  of  each  to  be, 
in  its  proper  order  of  things,  the  source  and  principle 
in  which  effects  are  involved  which  afterwards  become 
apparent,  whether  in  this  physical  universe,  or  in  the 
supernatural  region  of  the  Church. 

Suppose,  then,  Peter  to  have  held  the  dignity  which 
we  claim  for  him.  What  happens  in  the  Acts  which 
might  not,  nay,  which  should  not,  have  been  antici¬ 
pated  ?  Is  it  his  being  mentioned  above  all,  his 
speaking  in  the  name  of  all,  his  constantly  taking  the 
lead,  and  his  eminence,  as  if  he  were  the  head  ?  But 
it  could  not  be  otherwise  if  he  alone  received  from 
Christ  a  higher  dignity  than  all  the  rest.  Is  it  his 
discharging  the  office  of  supreme  Judge,  Legislator, 
Teacher,  and  Doctor  ?  Is  not  this  just  what  was  to  be 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  233 

expected  from  the  rank  of  Head  and  universal  Pastor  ? 
The  Primacy,  then,  the  large  authority,  and  the  un¬ 
shared  majesty  of  Peter,  belong  to  that  class  of  truths 
which  are  indubitably  believed  on  the  strength  of 
deduction  and  rational  anticipation. 

Having  noted,  if  not  all,  at  least  the  greater  number 
of  those  arguments  which  we  have  alleged  hitherto  in 
favour  of  our  cause,  we  approach  the  question  which 
was  secondly  to  be  cleared  up,  what,  namely,  is  the 
force  and  nature  of  that  Primacy ,  which  the  same 
arguments  prove  to  belong  to  Peter.  For  I  know  that 
all  Protestants  are  possessed  with  the  notion  that  no 
other  pre-eminence  should  be  ascribed  to  Peter,  on 
Scriptural  authority,  than  one  limited  to  a  certain 
precedency  of  honour  and  order.  That  precedency 
should  be  granted  Peter  they  are  not  unwilling  to  admit, 
but  supremacy ,  they  stoutly  maintain,  must  not  and 
cannot  be  allowed  him.  As  to  this  opinion  I 
consider  that  it  would  be  much  the  shorter  way  to 
strip  Peter  utterly  of  every  prerogative,  than  to  attenu¬ 
ate  the  distinctions  applied  to  him  in  Scripture  to  a  sort 
of  shadowy  precedency.  I  consider  that  nothing  is  so 
foreign  to  truth  and  the  Scripture,  as  on  their  testimony 
to  allow  that  Peter  was  distinguished  from  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles,  but  to  confine  that  superiority  within 
the  very  narrow  bounds  of  honour  and  order. 

For,  first ,  whence  do  we  most  evidently  and  chiefly 
draw  the  greater  dignity  which  Peter  clearly  possessed 
above  the  others  ?  We  draw  it  from  the  endowments 
separately  bestowed  upon  him  whereby  he  became 
the  Foundation  of  the  Church,  the  Supreme  Bearer 
of  the  keys,  the  Confirmer  of  his  brethren,  and  the 


234  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

universal  Pastor.  But  are  these  names,  images,  signs, 
expressing  a  naked  superiority  of  honour  and  order, 
or  rather  designating  an  authority  of  jurisdiction  and 
power  ?  I  cannot  hesitate  to  assert  either  that  these 
forms  are  most  fitted  of  all  to  express  a  singular 
authority,  or  that  none  such  exist  in  language.  For, 
secondly ,  their  force  is  to  ascribe  to  Peter  the  main  sway, 
and  to  mark  him  as  set  for  the  head  and  leader  of  all. 
Who  that  hears  them  can,  without  perverting  the 
natural  force  of  words,  or  disregarding  the  laws  of  in¬ 
terpretation,  imagine  anything  merely  honorary,  or 
figure  to  himself  Peter  with  a  mere  grant  of 
precedency  ? 

Especially  as,  thirdly ,  he  is  named  in  Scripture  not 
only  as  the  First ,  but,  comparatively,  the  Greater,  and 
absolutely,  the  Superior.1  Now  these  terms  do,  of 
themselves,  and  far  more  if  you  consider  the  context 
of  the  discourse  in  which  they  occur,  express  a  singular 
authority,  and  one  without  rival.  An  authority, 
fourthly ,  kindred  to  that  with  which  Christ,  while  yet 
in  his  mortal  life,  presided  over  the  Apostolic  college, 
and  administered  as  Supreme  Head  the  company  which 
he  had  formed.  For  we  can  never  sufficiently  urge 
a  point  which,  being  in  itself  most  true,  is  of  it¬ 
self  abundantly  sufficient  completely  to  set  at  rest  the 
present  controversy.  It  is  this,  that  Peter’s  Primacy 
proceeds  from  a  singular  association  with  those  dis¬ 
tinctions  in  virtue  of  which  Christ  is  considered  the 
Head  and  Chief,  and  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Church. 
So  that  the  more  his  Primacy  is  depressed,  the  more 
Christ’s  prerogatives  and  dignity  are  lowered;  nor  can 
1  UpuTos,  nelfav,  rjyov/xevos .  See  Chapter  II. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  235 

he  be  confirmed  to  a  precedency  of  honour  and  order, 
without  Christ’s  superiority  being  shut  within  wellnigh 
the  same  limits. 

Besides,  fifthly,  are  tokens  wanting  in  Scripture  which 
disclose  the .  nature  of  Peter’s  Primacy  ?  Are  there 
not  effects  which  unfold  the  force  and  quality  of  the 
cause  from  which  they  spring  ?  Such  tokens  there 
are  in  abundance,  and  such  effects  manifold.  These 
are,  the  care  with  which  Peter  guarded  the  Apostolic 
college ;  the  authority  with  which  he  visited  Christians 
in  every  part ;  the  singular  exercise  of  judicial  power,  by 
which  he  established  Church  discipline  and  provided 
for  its  maintenance;  his  acts  of  authoritative  teaching; 
his  drawing  the  form  of  laws  which  were  to  rule  the 
universal  Church;  and,  in  short,  the  wonderful  regard 
with  which  that  Church  followed  Peter  as  its  Head, 
and  the  Steward  of  all  the  Lord’s  family.  What 
Primacy  is  it  which  these  tokens  set  forth  ?  What 
cause  wdiich  these  effects  demonstrate  ?  Is  it  one 
limited  to  a  precedency  of  honour  and  order  ?  or  one 
pre-eminent  by  an  inherent  jurisdiction  and  authority  ? 
It  is  a  point  which  needs  no  further  words.  For  if 
any  there  be  whose  minds  are  not  struck  by  a  candid 
and  sincere  exposition  of  facts,  you  will  in  vain  attempt 
to  persuade  them  by  arguments. 

Unless,  indeed,  sixthly ,  they  allow  themselves  to  be 
forced  out  of  their  prejudice  by  the  Scriptures  ex¬ 
hibiting  such  a  Primacy  of  Peter  as  compels  all  others 
to  profess  one  and  the  same  faith  with  him,  and  to 
maintain  one  and  the  same  society.  For  such  an 
obligation  could  proceed  neither  from  titles  of  honour 
nor  from  precedency.  It  demanded  a  stronger  cause 


236  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

— none  other,  in  fact,  but  that  supreme  authority  by 
which  Peter  is  made  head  of  all. 

But  we  shall  feel  much  more  at  home  in  the  truth  of 
this  deduction,  if  we  inquire  a  little  more  deeply  into 
the  reasons  for  selecting  one  among  the  rest — namely, 
Peter — and  instituting  the  Primacy.  For  the  purpose 
and  end  proposed  in  a  work  have  the  force  of  a  negative 
rule  by  which  we  may  judge  with  certainty  what  ought 
to  be  done,  or  could  not  be  left  undone.  I  know  well 
that  it  does  not  follow,  if  anything  has  been  instituted 
for  a  certain  purpose,  that  it  ought  to  be  endowed  only 
with  those  properties  which  appear  necessary  for  the 
end  to  be  gained ;  for  it  may  be  much  more  munificently 
established  than  the  absolute  need  required.  But  at 
the  same  time  I  know  that  there  would  be  a  failure  in 
prudence  and  wisdom  in  one  who,  desiring  a  certain 
work  for  a  specific  end,  did  not  provide  it  with  every¬ 
thing  that  could  be  deemed  necessary.  Thus  the 
knowledge  of  the  intention  and  purpose  is  equivalent,  if 
not  to  a  positive  rule,  determining  all  and  singular  the 
powers  bestowed  on  any  institution,  at  least  to  a 
negative,  ascertaining  what  must  be  given  to  it,  and 
what  cannot  be  denied  to  it. 

Now,  is  the  purpose  for  which  Christ  instituted  the 
Primacy,  and  honoured  Peter  with  its  dignity,  unknown, 
or  is  it  most  truly  ascertained  ?  The  end  which  moved 
Christ  to  make  the  college  of  Apostles  unequal,  and  to 
set  Peter  as  head  over  it,  is  it  secret,  or  very  con¬ 
spicuous  ?  There  are  in  all  three  classes  of  reasons 
which  enable  us  to  form,  not  a  mere  guess,  but  an 
ascertained  judgement,  as  to  the  purpose  of  Christ  in 
instituting  the  Primacy.  There  are  typical  reasons, 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  237 

drawn  from  previous  shadowings  forth  of  it :  there  are 
analogical ,  derived  from  relations  of  resemblance;  and 
there  are  real ,  inherent  in  the  testimonies  themselves 
and  the  Church’s  endowments.  Let  us  briefly  exhibit 
these  in  order. 

I.  By,  then,  that  signal  agreement  wherewith  the 
two  dispensations,  the  old  and  the  new,  correspond  to 
each  other,  the  first  in  outline  and  the  last  as  filled  up, 
this  rudimentary  and  that  complete,  we  are  plainly  in¬ 
structed  that  it  was  Christ’s  purpose  for  Peter,  in  the 
new  dispensation,  to  bear  the  character  whose  linea¬ 
ments  had  been  traced  before  in  Abraham,  and  to  be 
eminent  among  the  Apostles  for  the  prerogative  which 
Abraham  had  possessed  among  the  Patriarchs.  Now, 
Abraham’s  special  prerogative  and  pre-eminence  was 
this,  that  no  one  could  share  either  promise,  whether 
carnal  or  spiritual,  which  is  expressed  in  Scripture  by 
“  the  Blessing,”  who  was  not  joined  with  Abraham  by 
a  double — that  is,  a  carnal  and  spiritual,  a  physical 
and  moral — bond.  For  to  him  and  to  his  seed  were  the 
promises  made,  with  the  condition  that  only  by  con¬ 
junction  with  him,  and  with  his  seed,  they  could  flow 
over  to  the  rest.  Since,  then,  in  the  new  dispensation, 
Peter  was  to  sustain  the  character  of  Abraham  in  the 
old,  and  since  the  only-begotten  Son  of  the  Father, 
having  put  on  the  form  of  a  servant,  granted  to  Peter 
the  prerogative  which,  in  prelude  of  his  future  order, 
he  had  given  to  Abraham,  it  is  plain  that  Simon  was 
chosen,  honoured  with  the  name  of  Cephas,  and  pre¬ 
ferred  above  all,  in  order  that  from  him  as  supreme 
minister  of  Christ,  and  by  union  with  him  as  visible 
head,  all  the  members  of  the  Church’s  body  might 


238  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

enjoy  the  blessings  and  fruits  of  the  Christian  institu¬ 
tion. 

The  deductions  from  this  are  easy  to  see.  For  two 
things  chiefly  follow,  specially  declarative  of  the  nature 
of  the  Primacy,  and  showing  its  intent  to  be  the  cause 
and  efficient  principle  of  that  unity  by  which  the  Church 
of  Christ  is  one  visible  body.  First,  there  follows  the 
duty ,  laid  upon  all  the  faithful,  of  being  joined  with 
Peter,  if  they  would  not  fall  from  those  promises  with 
which  Christ  has  most  bountifully  enriched  his  mystical 
Body,  being  no  other  than  that  which  reverences  Peter 
as  its  visible  head.  Secondly,  there  follows  Peter’s 
jurisdiction ,  in  virtue  of  which  he  enjoins  all  to  form 
one  communion  and  society  with  him,  as  well  as  effects, 
defends,  and  maintains  it.  Now,  nothing  can  be 
stronger  than  this  ordinance  of  Christ,  either  to  prove 
a  Primacy  of  supreme  jurisdiction,  or  to  unfold  its 
purpose  of  effecting  and  maintaining  unity. 

The  same  is  the  bearing  of  another  type,  no  less 
remarkable  and  no  less  adapted  to  explain  the  whole 
matter.  For,  as  Israel,  “  according  to  the  flesh,”  was 
the  shadow  of  the  “  Israel  of  God,”  which  was 
“  according  to  promise  ”P  and  as  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  was  a  type  and  ensample  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  so  the  twelve  sons  of  Israel,  the  heads  of  the 
Israelitish  race,  represented  and  imaged  out  those 
Twelve  whom  Christ  chose,  made  princes  in  his 
Church,  and  endowed  with  supreme  authority  to  build 
up  that  Church’s  structure,  and  enrich  it  day  by  day 
with  new  accessions  of  spiritual  children.  Of  this  type 
our  Lord’s  words  are  the  strongest  guarantee:  “  Amen, 

1  1  Cor.  x  18;  Gal.  vi  16. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  239 

I  say  unto  you,  that  you  who  have  followed  me  in  the 
regeneration,  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on  the 
throne  of  his  Majesty,  you  also  shall  sit  on  twelve 
thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. ”  And, 
again,  in  the  very  discourse  where  he  sets  forth  the 
future  Superior,  “  I  dispose  to  you,  as  my  Father 
disposed  to  me,  a  kingdom:  that  you  may  eat  and  drink 
at  my  table,  in  my  kingdom;  and  may  sit  upon  thrones* 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.” 

But  now,  though  all  the  sons  of  Israel  in  the  former 
typical  kingdom  were  chiefs,  and  heads  of  tribes,  yet 
one  of  them,  that  is,  Judah,  had  a  special  prerogative, 
which  the  Scriptures  set  forth,  and  which  was  called 
the  right  of  the  first-born.  In  virtue  of  this,  on  the  one 
hand,  Judah  was  esteemed  the  lord  of  his  brethren, 
whom  they  were  to  reverence  as  the  parent  of  the  whole 
family;  and  on  the  other,  it  was  only  by  union  with 
him,  and  with  the  seed  that  was  to  spring  from  him, 
that  the  other  chiefs  could  count  upon  the  divine 
blessing.  And  so  the  tribe  of  Judah  had  a  great  pre¬ 
eminence  over  the  other  eleven.  It  was  its  prerogative 
to  take  the  lead:2  it  had  received  from  God  the  promise 
of  an  authority3  which  was  not  to  terminate  before 
the  old  covenant  should  be  transformed  into  the  new. 
From  it  was  the  seed3  to  be  expected,  which  should  be 
the  source  of  blessing  to  all  nations,  prefigured  as  they 
were  by  the  twelve  tribes.  The  other  tribes  were 
bound4  to  union  with  it,  and  to  the  profession  of  its 
religion,  on  pain  of  falling  into  schism  and  forfeiting 

1  Matt,  xix  28;  Luke  xxii  29. 

2  See  Num.  ii  3-9;  x  14;  Judg.  i  1-3;  xx  18. 

3  Gen.  xlix  10;  and  see  John  iv  22.  4  3  Kings  xii. 


240  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


the  divine  covenant.  All  this  was  expressed  by  Jacob 
in  prophetic  inspiration,  when  he  addressed  Judah  as 
the  head  and  root  of  his  line:  “  Judah  (praise)  art  thou, 
thy  brethren  shall  praise  thee :  thy  hand  is  on  the  neck 
of  thine  enemies :  the  sons  of  thy  father  shall  bow  down 
to  thee.”  It  remains,  then,  to  ask  who  was  to  represent 
Judah’s  person  in  the  new  kingdom,  and  on  whom 
Christ  bestowed  the  prerogative,  the  type  and  image 
of  which  had  gone  before  in  Judah.  It  is  most  plain 
that  this  was  Simon  Peter,  for  whom  we  have,  there¬ 
fore,  to  claim  a  double  prerogative,  the  one  of  being 
the  source  and  origin,  from  which  no  one  may  be 
separated  without  severance  from  the  kingdom  and 
promises  of  Christ:  the  other  of  being  the  first-born, 
as  betokening  excellence,  by  which  he  was  pre-eminent 
in  the  possession  of  special  rights  among  his  brethren, 
the  Apostles. 

The  former  prerogative  was  expressed  by  the  Fathers 
of  Aquileia,  when,  in  the  words  of  St  Ambrose,  they 
stated  their  belief  in  St  Peter’s  chair:  “  For  thence,  as 
from  a  fountain-head,  the  rights  of  venerable  com¬ 
munion  flow  unto  all.”1  The  latter  is  confirmed  and 
illustrated  by  the  solemn  expressions  so  often  recurring 
in  Christian  records,  wherein  Peter  is  called  “  the 
Bishop  of  bishops,”2  “  the  Pastor  of  pastors,”3 
“  first  prelate  of  the  Apostles,”4  “  Patriarch  of  the 
whole  world,”5  “  universal  bishop,”0  “  Father  of 

1  St  Ambrose,  Ep.  1 1.  2  Arnobius  Junior  in  Ps.  cxxxviii. 

3  Eucherius  of  Lyons,  Horn,  in  Vig.  St  Petri. 

4  Proclus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  on  the  Trans¬ 
figuration. 

5  The  Archimandrites  of  Syria  to  Pope  Hormisdas, 

Mansi,  8,  428.  6  St  Bernard,  de  Cons.,  lib.  2,  c.  8, 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


241 


fathers,”1  “  having  the  dignity  of  pastoral  headship,” 
“  the  most  divine  of  all  heads,  arch-pastor  of  the 
Church.” 

II.  To  these  reasons,  which,  as  we  think,  may  be 
called  typical ,  succeed  the  analogical,  which  prove  with 
equal  evidence  the  purpose  of  the  Primacy  as  instituted, 
and  its  inherent  powers.  If  we  ask  what  are  these 
reasons  from  analogy,  and  to  what  they  point,  one  only 
answer  can  be  given  commended  by  any  show  of  truth, 
that  the  Primacy  was  instituted  in  order  that  the  Church 
of  Christ  might  seem  to  be  moulded  after  the  analogy 
of  one  human  body,  one  house,  one  kingdom,  one  city, 
and  one  fold.  But  whence  the  need  that  so  very 
remarkable  and  clear  an  analogy  should  be  obtained  by 
the  institution  of  the  Primacy  ?  Doubtless  because 
the  Primacy  was  created  as  a  principle,  by  whose  virtue 
and  efficiency  what  was  various  and  manifold  should 
be  gathered  up  into  unity,  because  it  was  to  be  a  head 
in  which  all  the  diverse  members  of  the  ecclesiastical 
body  should  be  joined,  the  centre  of  the  Church’s  circle. 

Therefore  the  reasons  drawn  from  analogy  show  that 
the  unity  of  the  Church  is  to  be  considered  the  special 
end  for  which  the  Primacy  was  instituted,  and  the 
Primacy  itself  a  principle  abundantly  provided  with 
all  those  means  by  which  so  admirable  a  blessing  as 
unity  may  be  first  produced  and  then  maintained. 

And  this  is  confirmed  by  another  analogy,  well 
worthy  of  close  attention.  This  consists  in  the  double 
and  reciprocal  relation  in  which  the  universal  Church 
stands  to  particular  Churches,  and  the  institution  of 
the  Primacy  to  the  institution  of  bishops,  who,  by 

1  S  Theodore  Studites  to  Pope  Leo  III,  lib.  i,  Ep.  33. 

16 


242  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Christ’s  appointment,  govern  those  particular  Churches : 
an  agreement,  which  ought  to  have  especial  force  with 
those  who  believe  in  the  divine  institution  of  bishops. 
For  as  the  whole  society  of  true  believers,  and  the 
particular  congregations  of  which  it  is  made  up,  are 
called  in  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Christian  records  by 
one  and  the  same  name  of  the  Church,  so  is  there  the 
very  closest  analogy  between  the  bond  which  connects 
the  universal  Church,  and  that  which  connects  its 
several  parts. 

Exactly,  then,  as  it  is  asserted  with  great  truth  of  all 
these  particular  Churches  that  they  are  one  house,  one 
city,  and  one  fold,  so  must  this  be  repeated  of  the  whole 
Church,  since  it  is  set  'forth  in  Scripture  by  no  other 
images,  and  has  no  less  right  to  claim  the  property  of 
unity.  Hence  St  Chrysostom’s  golden  saying,  “  If  it 
is  the  Church  of  God,  it  is  united  and  one,  not  at 
Corinth  only,  but  in  the  whole  world.  For  the  Church 
is  a  name  not  of  division,  but  of  union  and  harmony;”1 
and  St  Gregory  calls  it  “  the  tunic  without  seam, 
woven  from  the  top  throughout.”2 

Now,  the  same  reason  which  existed  for  instituting 
particular  bishops  to  govern  and  preserve  in  unity 
particular  flocks,  moved  Christ  to  institute  a  universal 
Primate,  and  to  set  him  over  the  whole  fold.  If  in  the 
former  case  the  best  description  of  a  particular  Church 
is  that  of  St  Cyprian,  “  A  people  united  to  its  priest, 
and  a  flock  adhering  to  its  pastor  ”;3  in  the  latter  the 
form  of  unity ,  which  Christ  established  in  the  universal 

1  In  1  Cor.,  Horn.  I.,  n.  1. 

2  St  Greg.  Naz.,  Orat.  12,  alluding  to  lohn  xix  23. 

3  St  Cyprian,  Ep.  79. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  243 

Primate,  no  less  imposes  on  all,  both  taught  and  teachers, 
the  necessity  of  saying  with  St  Jerome,  “I,  following 
none  as  the  first  save  Christ,  am  joined  in  communion 
with  vour  blessedness — that  is,  with  the  chair  of  Peter. 
Upon  that  rock  the  Church  is  built,  I  know.  Whoever 
outside  of  this  house  eateth  the  lamb,  is  profane.  If 
any  one  was  not  in  the  ark  of  Noe,  he  shall  perish. 
I  know  not  Vitalis;  I  reject  Meletius;  I  am  ignorant  of 
Paulinus.  Whoever  gathers  not  with  thee,  scatters — 
that  is,  he  who  is  not  of  Christ  is  of  Antichrist. ” 1 

III.  A  great  accession  of  evidence  will  accrue  to 
what  we  have  said,  if  we  attentively  consider  the 
reasons  deduced  from  the  texts  containing  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  the  Primacy,  and  those  proceeding  from  the 
inherent  properties  of  the  Church.  To  speak  of  the 
texts  first: 

1.  Either  they  carry  no  meaning  with  them,  or  they 
prove  at  least  this,  that  Christ,  in  instituting  the 
Primacy,  intended,2  while  exhibiting  the  whole  Church 
under  the  usual  image  of  a  house  and  building,  to  give 
it  a  foundation ,  the  bond  at  once  of  its  strength  and 
unity.  Again,  while  communicating  to  one  the  special 
gift  of  unwavering  faith,  our  Lord  intended  to  make 
him  the  channel  for  establishing  and  confirming 3  all 
the  faithful ;  to  render4  the  fold  which  he  had  gathered 
out  of  all  nations  one  by  the  unity  of  a  supreme  visible 
pastor ,  and  to  constitute5  one  of  such  eminence  as  to  be 
the  Ruler  and  the  Greater  among  all. 

But  can  we,  or  ought  we,  to  conclude  from  this  as  to 
the  purpose  of  the  Primacy,  and  as  to  its  constituent 

1  St  Jerome,  Ep.  57.  2  Matt,  xvi  18.  3  Luke  xxii  31 , 33. 

4  John  xxi  15.  5  Luke  xxii  26. 


244  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

force  and  principle  ?  Assuredly  these  texts  prove 
directly  and  categorically  that  the  Primacy  was  set  up 
as  the  efficient  principle  whereby  to  mould  the  Church’s 
visible  unity,  and  was  endowed  with  all  that  authority, 
without  which  unity  could  neither  have  been  produced 
nor  maintained  in  existence. 

2.  And  in  this  judgement  we  shall  be  confirmed  if 
we  investigate  the  properties  of  which  the  Church 
cannot  be  deprived,  without  taking  a  form  and  an 
appearance  different  from  that  which  it  received  from 
Christ.  The  first  which  occurs  is  that  identity  by 
which  the  Church  must  always  be  like  itself,  and 
cannot  be  substantially  different  at  its  beginning  and 
in  its  growth ;  one  thing  when  it  had  Christ  for  its  visible 
head,  and  another  when  his  words  had  come  to  pass, 
“  A  little  while,  and  now  you  shall  not  see  me  because 
I  go  to  the  Father.”  Now,  at  its  first  beginning  in  the 
time  of  our  Lord’s  mortal  life,  the  Church  presented 
the  form  of  a  society  governed  by  the  supreme  power 
of  one,  and  deriving  its  visible  unity  from  one  supreme 
visible  head.  That  it  might  not  subsequently  lose  this 
identity,  and  put  on  another  form,  our  Lord  chose 
a  Primate  to  be  the  principle  of  visible  unity,  and  to 
have  the  power  of  head  over  the  whole  body. 

And  indeed  this  was  necessary  to  maintain  the  double 
character  and  test  of  unity 1  and  Catholicity ,2  by  which 
the  Church  is  distinguished  in  Holy  Scripture  and  in 
the  records  of  Christian  antiquity.  As  to  unity ,  not 

1  Unity.  John  x  1 6 ;  xvii  20-23;  1  Cor.  xii  12-31; 
Eph.  ii  14-22;  iv  5;  1  Cor.  i  10. 

2  Catholicity.  Luke  xxiv  47;  Mark  xvi  20;  Acts  i  8; 
ix  15;  Rom.  ix  18;  Col.  i  8-23. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  245 


only  are  the  expressions  in  the  creeds,  and  the  more 
ample  explanation  of  them  in  the  Fathers,1  most  clear 
and  emphatic,  but  likewise  what  is  said  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  end  for  which  the  Church  was  founded 
by  Christ.  For  the  grace2  of  God  our  Saviour  hath 
appeared  to  all  men,  instructing  those  who  had3  changed 
the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  liked  not  to  have  God 
in  their  knowledge,  that  denying4  all  these  things  they 
might  become  an  acceptable  people,  and  enlightened5 
by  Christ,  and  sanctified  in  the  truth,  might  by  the 
profession  of  one  faith  be  one6  body  and  one  spirit,  in 
the  same  manner7  in  which  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  one,  and  might  be  divided8  by  no  sects  and  dissen¬ 
sions,  which  are  manifestly  the  works  of  the  flesh,  not 
of  God,  who  is  not  the  God9  of  dissension  but  of  peace. 
For  therefore  Christ,10  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father, 
gave  his  blood  for  it,  to  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious 
Church,  not  having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing, 
which  would  break  peace  and  disturb  the  agreement 
of  faith.  It  was  to  be  holy  and  without  blemish,11 
immovable  through  that  rock  on  which  it  rests,  and 

1  For  all  the  Fathers  hold  the  doctrine  thus  expressed  by 

St  Hilary  of  Poitiers  on  Ps.  cxxi  n.  5.  “  The  Church  is  one 

body,  not  mixed  up  by  a  confusion  of  bodies,  nor  by  each 
of  these  being  united  in  an  indiscriminate  heap  and  shapeless 
bundle ;  but  we  are  all  one  by  the  unity  of  faith,  by  the  society 
of  charity,  by  concord  of  works  and  will,  by  the  one  gift 
of  the  sacramentum  in  all.”  No  notion  of  the  Church’s  unity 
in  England,  it  may  be  remarked,  outside  of  Catholicism, 
goes  beyond  “  the  indiscriminate  heap  and  shapeless  bundle.” 

2  Tit.  iin.  3  Rom.  125. 

4  Tit.  ii  14,  with  1  Pet.  ii  25. 

6  Eph.  iv  4.  7  John  xvii  21. 

9  1  Cor.  xiv  33.  10  Eph.  v  27. 


5  John  xvii  17. 
8  Gal.  v  19,  20. 
11  Matt,  xvi  18. 


246  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

against  which  not  even  the  gates  of  hell  shall  prevail. 
It  was  to  be  wisely  ordered  as  the  house  of  God,1  in 
which2  all  hear  his  voice,  who  is  set  over  as  the  ruler,3 
and  has  received  his  brethren  to  be  confirmed,4  and  the 
care6  of  the  whole  flock.  It  was  to  be  endued6  with 
virtue  from  on  high,  and  strengthened  by  the  Spirit 
of  truth7  who  proceeds  from  the  Father;  possessing 
the  power  of  authoritative8  teaching,  which  if  any  hear9 
not,  nor  obey,  they  are  to  be  accounted  as  heathens  and 
publicans,  by  a  judgement  which  binds  both  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.  Are  there  any  who  do  not  see  that  in 
this  description,  which  sets  forth  the  Church’s  pre¬ 
ordained  end,  its  proper  character  and  very  lineaments, 
the  Primacy  itself  is  included,  and  exhibited  as  the 
principal  cause  which  effects  the  unity  of  the  whole 
body  ?  I  hardly  think  that  any  such  can  be,  so 
apparent  is  the  bond  which  ties  these  several  parts 
together. 

Yet  perhaps  this  may  be  more  vividly  brought  out  if 
we  shortly  mention  the  common  opinions  among 
Protestants  on  the  Church’s  unity.  For,  omitting 
those  who  hold  an  invisible10  Church,  and  so  expunge 
visible  unity  from  its  attributes,  all  the  other  opinions 
may  be  reduced  to  three : 

A.  Anglicans,  whose  belief  has  been  set  forth,  besides 

1  1  Tim.  iii  15.  2  Matt,  xviii  17.  3  Luke  xxii  26. 

4  Luke  xxii  31,  32.  5  lohn  xxi  15.  6  Acts  i  4-8. 

7  John  xv  26.  8  Matt,  xxviii  20.  9  Matt,  xviii  18. 

10  The  first  Reformers  fell  into  this  grievous  error  because 
they  had  no  other  way  to  defend  their  schism.  They  may 
be  passed  over  at  present,  as  in  most  even  of  the  Protestant 
confessions  visibility  is  reckoned  among  the  notes  of  the 
Church. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  247 

Pearson  on  the  Creed,  with  more  than  usual  care  by 
Dodwell  (in  his  Treatise  on  the  Bishop  as  the  Principle 
of  Unity,  and  St  Peter’s  Primacy  among  the  Apostles 
as  the  Exemplar  of  Unity),  begin  by  noting  that  the 
question  of  visible  unity  cannot  be  determined  in  the 
same  way  as  it  respects  the  universal  Church,  or  each 
particular  Church.  But  why  ?  Because,  they  say, 
it  was  indeed  the  will  of  Christ  that  each  particular 
Church  should  have  a  double  unity,  inward  and  out¬ 
ward,  but  it  was  not  his  will  that  the  whole  Church, 
the  sum  of  these  particular  Churches,  should  have  the 
same  mark  and  test.  Because  it  was  his  will  that 
both  unities  should  characterize  the  particular  Churches, 
to  use  a  school  phrase,  separately  and  distributively ,  but 
not  the  whole  body  and  the  sum  of  these  taken  col¬ 
lectively.  Whence  they  conclude  that  bishops  were 
chosen  and  made,  by  the  command  of  Christ,  to  preside 
over  particular  Churches,  and  be  in  them  the  source 
and  principle  of  external  unity,  but  that  a  Primate  was 
not  chosen  to  whom  the  whole  Church  should  be 
subject,  and  on  whom  its  external  unity  should  depend. 

At  this  argument  one  is  lost  in  astonishment,  how 
it  could  have  suggested  itself  to  learned  men,  and 
gained  their  assent.  For  what  had  they  to  prove,  or 
how  could  they  assure  themselves,  or  others,  as  to 
either  of  these  two  points,  that  external  unity  was 
necessary  to  particular  Churches  but  not  to  the  whole 
Church,  or  that  the  institution  of  bishops  presiding 
over  particular  Churches  came  from  Christ,  yet  not 
that  of  the  Primate,  whose  charge  was  to  rule,  ad¬ 
minister,  and  maintain  in  unity  the  whole  Church  ? 
Had  they  texts  wherein  to  trust  ?  But  as  often  as  the 


248  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Bible  speaks  of  the  Church’s  unity,  it  means  that 
Church  which  is  called  “  the  kingdom  of  God,”  “  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,”  and  “  the  kingdom  of  heaven,” 
which  is  termed  “  the  inheritance  of  the  Gentiles,”  and 
embraces  with  a  mother’s  bosom  and  a  mother’s  love 
the  whole  race  of  man  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the 
other.  Had  they  creeds  to  cite  ?  But  in  these  unity 
is  attributed  to  that  Church  only,  which  is  so  termed 
absolutely,  and  very  often  has  the  epithet  of  Catholic. 

Moreover,  is  the  word  Church,  in  its  unrestricted 
application,  of  doubtful  meaning  ?  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  specially  defined  as  well  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,1 
where  it  expresses  of  itself  the  whole  society  of  be¬ 
lievers,  as  in  the  Fathers,  such  as  Irenasus,2  Tertullian,3 
Clement4  of  Alexandria,  Origen,5  Hilary,6  Jerome,7 
and  all  the  rest  without  exception,  who,  in  using  it, 
express  the  whole  Christian  people  joined  in  one  sole 
communion.  It  is  defined  also  by  Councils,  as  in  the 
Canons  of  Laodicea,8  Carthage,9  and  Constantinople,10 
where  the  Church  means  the  whole  assembly  of 
orthodox  believers,  as  distinct  from  heretics  and 
schismatics.  It  is  defined  in  the  most  ancient  ex- 

1  1  Cor.  vi  4;  x  32;  xi  22;  xii  28;  Eph.  i  22;  iii  10-21; 
v  23,  24,  25,  27,  29,  32;  Col.  i  18-24;  1  Tim.  iii  15. 

2  Irenaeus,  lib.  1,  c.  3;  lib.  3,  c.  4. 

3  Tertullian,  de  Praesc.,  c.  4. 

4  Clement,  Stromat.,  lib.  7,  17. 

5  Origen  in  Cantic.  Horn.  3. 

6  Hilary,  de  Trin.,  lib.  7,  c.  12. 

7  Jerome,  adv.  Lucifer. 

8  Concil.  Laodic.,  Can.  9,  10. 

9  Concil.  Carthag.  4,  Can  71. 

10  Concil  Constant.  2,  Act  3. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  249 

planation  of  the  creeds,  the  unanimous  meaning  of 
which  Tertullian  seems  to  have  rendered  in  saying: 
“  And,  therefore,  so  many  and  so  great  Churches  are 
that  first  one  from  the  Apostles,  whence  all  come 
So  all  are  first,  and  all  Apostolical,  while  all  set  forth 
one  unity,  while  they  have  interchange  of  peace,  the 
appellation  of  brotherhood  and  the  common  rights  of 
friendship,  privileges  regulated  by  no  other  principle 
than  the  tradition  of  the  same  sacr amentum  Lastly, 

the  very  heretics2  defined  this  term,  who,  in  order  to 
make  themselves  understood,  could  use  the  word 
Church  in  no  other  sense  than  to  express  the  universal 
assembly  of  the  faithful. 

After  this  it  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  ask  Anglicans 
afresh  if  they  have  ancient  Fathers  whose  authority  they 
can  quote.  What  these  thought  and  believed  about 
the  Church’s  unity  is  fully  shown  by  those  whom  we 
have  quoted,  and  by  the  words  of  Irenaeus,  “  The 
Church,  though  dispersed  throughout  the  whole  world, 
yet,  as  if  it  were  contained  in  the  same  house,  carefully 
preserves  the  rule  of  faith,  and  holds  it  as  if  she  had 
one  soul  and  one  heart,  nay,  and  teaches  it  with  one 
consent,  as  if  she  spoke  with  one  voice.  For  although 
different  tongues  occupy  the  world,  yet,  the  force  of 
tradition  is  one  and  the  same,  nor  do  the  Churches  of 
Germany,  Spain,  Gaul,  the  East,  Egypt,  Libya,  and 
the  middle  of  the  world  embrace  any  other  faith.  But 
as  there  is  one  and  the  same  sun  shining  over  the  whole 
world,  so  the  preaching  of  the  truth  shines  every  - 

1  De  Praesc.,  c.  20. 

2  See  in  the  sixth  act  of  the  second  Nicene  Council  the 
quotations  from  the  iconoclast  synod  of  Constantinople. 


250  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

where  and  enlightens  all  men  who  desire  its  know¬ 
ledge.”1 

What,  then,  was  the  motive  of  Anglicans  in  main¬ 
taining  the  unity  of  particular  Churches,  and  the  in¬ 
stitution  of  bishops  cohering  with  it,  to  be  necessary, 
while  they  denied  the  necessity  of  unity  in  the  Church 
universal,  or  of  a  Primate’s  institution,  to  effect 
universal  unity  ?  What  induced  them  to  assert  incom¬ 
patibilities,  and  defend  them  as  a  matter  of  life  and 
death  ?  The  evidence  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  un¬ 
questionable  belief  of  all  Christian  antiquity,  extorted 
from  them  the  acknowledgement  that  unity  was  a  mark 
of  the  Church,  and  the  ascription  to  Christ  of  the 
institution  of  bishops  as  necessary  for  the  forming  and 
maintaining  unity.  But  the  fixed  purpose  of  defending 
their  schism ,  and  their  determination  to  reject  the  Primacy , 
urged  them  to  deny  that  unity  in  the  whole  Church  was 
ordered  and  provided  for  by  Christ.  The  result  of 
these  affirmatives  and  negatives  was  a  doctrinal2 
monster  of  incomparable  ugliness,  an  outrage  on 
the  light  both  of  nature  and  of  revelation,  as 
incapable  of  defence  as  abhorrent  from  reason  and 
from  grace. 

B.  The  second  Protestant  opinion  has  been  set  forth 
at  length  by  Vitringa,3  and  supported  with  all  his  in- 

1  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  1,  c.  3. 

2  Even  the  Puritan  Cartwright  observed,  “If  it  be 
necessary  to  the  unity  of  the  Church  that  an  Archbishop 
should  preside  over  other  Bishops,  why  not  on  the  same 
principle  should  one  Archbishop  preside  over  the  whole 
Church  of  God  ?” — Defence  of  Whitgift. 

3  Sacred  Observations,  lib.  5,  c.  7,  on  the  hypothetical 
external  communion  of  Christians. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  251 

genuity.  It  is  that  of  those  who  distinguish  a  twofold 
unity  of  the  Church,  one  interior,  spiritual,  proceeding 
from  union  with  one  and  the  same  invisible  Head,  Jesus 
Christ,  and  completed  and  perfected  by  the  inhabita¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  bestowal  of  heavenly 
gifts;  the  other  exterior,  visible,  depending  on  pro¬ 
fession  of  the  same  faith,  participation  of  the  same 
sacraments,  obedience  to  the  same  superiors.  Having 
made  this  distinction,  they  proceed  to  argue  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  that  while  the  former  unity  is 
universal  and  absolutely  necessary,  the  latter  is 
neither  universal  nor  necessary,  save  hypothetically 
(of  which  hypothesis  Vitringa  nowhere  explains 
the  nature),  and  so  is  capable  both  of  extension  and 
restriction.  In  a  word,  they  attach  simple  and 
absolute  necessity  and  universality  to  the  spiritual 
and  invisible  unity,  but  by  no  means  to  the  external 
and  visible. 

But  for  this  what  are  their  authorities  ?  Can  they 
allege  the  most  ancient  Fathers  in  unbroken  succession 
from  the  Apostles  ?  Nay,  they  candidly  confess  that 
the  Fathers  thought  external  and  visible  unity  simply 
and  absolutely  necessary,  and  not  those  only  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  but  those  of  the  second  and 
third.  Witness  Vitringa,1  who  says,  “  If  we  consult 
on  this  point  the  doctors  of  the  ancient  Christian 
Church,  they  seem  on  all  hands  to  have  embraced  the 
view  that  the  communion  of  believers  in  holy  rites, 
in  the  supper  of  the  Lord,  and  in  reciprocal  offices  of 
brotherly  love,  was  maintained  absolutely,  not  hypo- 

1  See  also  the  testimony  of  Mosheim,  quoted  above, 
p.  216,  note. 


252  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

thetically.  They  supposed,  and  seem  to  have  per¬ 
suaded  themselves,  that  all  who  were  joined  to  the 
Christian  Church  by  the  due  rite  of  baptism  after 
previous  preparation,  were  really  regenerated  by  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  so  that  the  Christian 
Church  was  an  assembly  of  men,  who  in  far  greater 
part,  saving  hypocrites  of  whom  a  few  might  exist  in 
secret,  participated  in  the  renewing  and  sanctifying 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Accordingly,  to  be  joined 
to  the  Church  was  much  the  same  as  being  joined  to 
the  heavenly  city;  to  have  one’s  name  on  the  Church’s 
books,  much  the  same  as  to  have  it  in  God’s  book  of 
life.  On  the  other  hand,  to  be  severed  from  Church 
communion,  or,  to  use  Tertullian’s  words,  ‘  to  be  de¬ 
prived  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  be  debarred  from  all  brotherly  com¬ 
munion,’  was  to  risk  salvation,  and  incur  the  danger  of 
eternal  death.  That  is,  they  supposed  that  no  one 
was  saved  out  of  the  external  communion  of  the  Church, 
which  they  confounded  with  the  mystical  and  spiritual 
communion  of  the  saints.  And  again,  kindred  points 
to  these  and  resting  on  the  same  principle,  that  Bishops 
represent  the  office  and  person  of  Jesus  Christ  himself 
in  the  Christian  Church;  that  those  who  separated 
themselves  from  them  when  rightly  and  duly  elected, 
separated  themselves  at  the  same  time  from  the  com¬ 
munion  of  Christ  himself;  that  those  who  were  ab¬ 
solved  by  the  bishops  after  penance  publicly  performed 
according  to  the  canons  of  ecclesiastical  discipline, 
restored  to  their  rank,  and  honoured  with  the  kiss  of 
peace,  were  absolved  in  the  heavenly  court  by  God 
himself  and  Christ  the  Judge.  Lastly,  which  was  the 


ST  PETER:  HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE  253 

most  audacious 1  of  all  such  hypotheses,  that  it  was  all 
over  with  the  salvation  of  all  who  separated  themselves 
in  schism  from  the  external  communion  of  the  Church 
and  its  rites,  although  hitherto  they  had  neither  been 
tainted  with  heresy,  nor  involved  in  crimes  destructive 
of  the  Christian2  profession.  It  would  be  easy  for  me 
to  support  at  length  each  one  of  these  particulars  by  the 
sentiments  and  the  discipline  of  the  doctors  of  the 
primitive  Church,  were  they  unknown  to  the  more 
instructed,  or  did  my  purpose  allow  it.  I  now  only 
appeal  to  Cyprian’s  letter  to  Magnus,  in  the  whole  of 
which  he  supposes  and  urges  the  very  hypotheses  which 
I  have  been  enumerating;  and  amongst  the  rest,  speak¬ 
ing  of  Novatian’s  schism,  he  writes  thus  distinctly: 
‘  But  if  there  is  one  Church  which  is  beloved  by  Christ, 
and  alone  is  cleansed  in  his  laver,  how  can  he  who  is 
not  in  the  Church,’  (that  is,  in  communion  with  that 
particular  external  assembly  which  makes  a  part  of  the 
external  Catholic  Church)  ‘  be  loved  by  Christ,  or 
washed  and  cleansed  in  his  laver  ?  Wherefore  as  the 
Church  alone  possesses  the  water  of  life,  and  the  power 

1  Thus  the  universal  belief  of  the  Fathers  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  is  charged  with  audacity.  It  is  difficult  not  to  be  struck 
with  the  utter  antagonism  of  feeling  which  separates  Pro¬ 
testants  from  the  whole  body  of  the  Fathers.  The  state¬ 
ments  here  ascribed,  and  truly,  by  Vitringa  to  them,  would 
be  viewed  in  modern  English  society  as  the  very  insanity 
of  bigotry. 

2  Because  to  rend  Christ’s  mystical  body,  and  to  subvert 
that  unity  for  which  He  had  prayed  the  Father,  was  regarded 
by  them  as  a  crime  of  the  deepest  dye.  In  modern  England 
it  would  be  consecrated  by  the  vainglorious  plea  of  “  civil 
and  religious  liberty.” 


254  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

of  baptizing  and  washing  a  man,  let  him  who  asserts 
that  any  one  can  be  baptized  and  sanctified  with 
Novatian,  first  show  and  teach  that  Novatian  is  in  the 
Church,  or  presides  over  the  Church }  For  the  Church 
is  one,  which,  being  one,  cannot  be  at  once  within  and 
without.  For  if  it  is  with  Novatian,  it  was  not  with 
Cornelius.  But  if  it  was  with  Cornelius,  who  suc¬ 
ceeded  the  Bishop  Fabian  in  regular  order,  and  whom 
the  Lord  hath  glorified  with  martyrdom  over  and 
above  the  rank  of  his  high  priesthood,  Novatian  is 
not  in  the  Church.’2  It  is  the  precise  thing  which  we 
have  been  stating.” 

But  where  did  Vitringa  and  the  supporters  of  his 
doctrine  get  courage  to  contradict  the  whole  line  of 
Fathers  and  their  unbroken  tradition  ?  You  would 
surely  expect  from  them  decisive  arguments,  and  ex¬ 
pressions  from  Holy  Writ  distinctly  laying  down  no 
other  than  a  hypothetical  necessity  of  visible  and 
external  unity.  But  you  may  search  in  vain  all  over 
the  Gospels,  the  Epistles,  and  the  Acts,  for  any  such. 
Not  only  is  there  no  mention  in  them  of  such  a  dis¬ 
tinction  as  that  invisible  unity  is  absolutely  necessary, 
while  external  and  visible  unity  is  but  hypothetically  so ; 
but  this  latter  is  plainly  enjoined  and  set  forth  as  the 
note  which  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  the  true  Church  , 
cannot  be  without;  and  its  violation  is  reckoned  among 

1  The  unrestricted  expression,  “  to  preside  over  the 
Church,”  used  by  Cyprian  of  Novatian,  who  claimed  to  be 
Peter’s  successor,  contains  a  clear  indication  that  the  fold 
entrusted  to  Peter  was  as  wide  as  the  Church  itself.  It  is 
the  same  Church  in  the  two  clauses,  but  in  the  former  it 
must  be  understood  universally, 

2  Ep.  69. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  255 

those  works  of  the  flesh  which  exclude  from  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

How,  besides,  can  that  be  deemed  necessary  only 
under  hypothesis,  without  holding  and  faithfully  main¬ 
taining  which  you  cut  yourself  off  from  the  very 
fountain  of  blessing,  and  transgress  and  subvert  the 
order  appointed  by  God  for  attaining  salvation  ? 
Such  an  assertion  would  be  senseless.  Yet  in  most 
of  the  Protestant  professions — the  Helvetic,  art.  xiv, 
the  Gallican,  art.  xvi,  the  Scotch,  art.  xxvii,  the  Belgian, 
art.  xxviii,  the  Saxon,  art.  xii,  the  Bohemian,  art.  viii, 
and  that  of  the  Remonstrants,  art.  xxii — it  is  laid  down 
as  an  indisputable  principle,  “  That  the  heirs  of  eternal 
life  are  only  to  be  found  in  the  assembly  of  those 
called.”  What,  then,  do  those  who  violate  outward  and 
visible  unity,  and  withdraw  from  the  outward  and 
visible  body  of  the  Church  ?  They  stop  up  the  very 
way  which  Providence  has  opened  for  their  obtaining 
“  the  inheritance  of  sons.” 

For  indeed  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  his  mystical 
body  the  Church,1  which  therefore  he  purchased  with 
his  own  blood,  enriched  with  promises,2  provided  with 
all  manner  of  graces,  and  most  nobly  dowered  with 
truth,  charity,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,3  to  give  her  at  last 
salvation,  and  “  the  weight  of  eternal  glory.”4  But 
have  these  things  reference  to  a  visible  or  an  invisible 
Church  ?  To  a  Church  one  and  coherent,  or  rent 
and  torn  by  factions  ?  It  is  the  Church  which  Christ 
founded,  which  he  made  to  be  “  the  light  of  the  world,”6 

1  Eph.  v  23-25.  2  Eph.  iv  15-17. 

3  John  xiv  16-26;  xv  26;  xvi  7. 

4  2  Cor.  iv  17.  5  Matt,  v  14. 


256  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

bound  together  by  manifold1  external  links,  ordered  to 
be  one  with  the  unity  of  a  house,  a  family,  a  city,  a 
kingdom;  with  that  unity  wherewith  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  one.  In  it  he  placed2  pastor  and  doctors  to 
bind  and  to  loose,  and  to  watch  over  the  agreement  of 
all  the  parts ;  and  he  committed  to  Peter  the  charge  to 
rule  and  to  feed.  Such,  then,  as  fall  off  from  one 
single  visible  Church  are  of  the  condition  of  those  whom 
the  Apostles  of  the  Lord  foretold,  that  “  in  the  last 
time  there  should  come  mockers,  walking  according  to 
their  own  desires  in  ungodliness:  these  are  they  who 
separate  themselves,  sensual  men,  having  not  the 
Spirit”:3  these  tear  themselves  from  their  Saviour, 
lose  the  fruit  purchased  by  his  blood,  and  fall  from  the 
inheritance  which  the  Head  obtained  for  his  body  and 
his  members. 

Therefore  the  necessity  of  union  with  the  one  single 
visible  Church  is  as  great  as  the  necessity  of  union  with 
Christ  the  Head,  as  the  necessity  of  the  remission  of 
sins,  “  for  outside  of  it  they  are  not  remitted:  for  this 
Church  has  specially  received  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
earnest,  without  whom  no  sins  are  remitted.”4  It  is  as 
great  as  the  necessity  of  charity,  “  for  it  is  this  very 

1  Compare  Luke  xii  8,  9,  with  Matt,  x  32;  Mark  viii  38; 
Rom.  x  10;  and  again,  Mark  xvi  15,  with  Matt,  xxviii  19; 
Acts  ii  41 ;  viii  36;  xix  5;  1  Cor.  xii  13;  and  Matt,  xxvi  28, 
with  Luke  xxii  19;  1  Cor.  x  17;  xi  21 ;  and  Eph.  iv  11,  with 
Acts  xx  28;  Tit.  i  5. 

2  Compare  Eph.  iv  11-16,  with  1  Cor.  xii  13-31;  and 
Matt,  xviii  18,  with  John  xx  21 ;  Acts  xv  41 ;  xvi  4;  2  Cor. 
x  6 ;  1  Tim.  v  20;  Tit.  i  93 ;  ii  15. 

3  Jude  18;  2  Pet.  iii,  2,  3. 

4  Augustin,  in  Enchirid.,  c.  63. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  257 

charity  which  those  who  are  cut  off  from  the  com¬ 
munion  of  the  Catholic  Church  do  not  possess,”1 
whence  “  whatsoever  rhing  heretics  and  schismatics 
receive,  the  charity  which  covers  a  multitude  of  sins  is 
the  gift  of  Catholic  unity  and  peace.”2  It  is  as  great, 
in  short,  as  the  necessity  not  to  involve  oneself  “  in 
a  horrible  crime  and  sacrilege,”3  “  in  the  greatest  of 
evils,”4  one  “  by  which  Christ’s  passion  is  rendered  of 
no  effect,  and  his  body  is  rent.”5  Thus6  the  sin  is  com¬ 
mitted  of  which  Christ  said,  “  It  shall  not  be  forgiven, 
neither  in  this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come,”  and  one 
is  estranged  “  from  the  sole  Catholic  Church,  which  re¬ 
tains  the  true  worship,  in  which  is  the  fountain  of  truth, 
the  home  of  faith,  the  temple  of  God,  into  which  if 
any  one  enter  not,  or  from  which  if  any  one  go  out,  he 
loses  the  hope  of  life  and  eternal  salvation.”7  Can  any 
necessity  be  greater,  or  less  conditional  than  this  ?  Or 
what  can  be  more  plain  than  this  statement  of  the 
simple  and  absolute  necessity  of  visible  unity  and 
outward  communion  ? 

Where,  then,  are  we  to  find  the  cause  which  induced 
so  many  learned  and  able  Protestants  first  to  imagine 
this  distinction  between  the  necessity  of  internal  and 
external  communion  and  unity,  and  then  to  deceive 
themselves  and  others  with  such  a  mockery  ?  The 

1  Aug.  in  Tract,  de  Symb.,  c.  11. 

2  Aug.  de  Baptismo,  cont.  Donat.,  lib.  3,  c.  16. 

3  Aug.  Cont.  Litt.  Petiliani,  lib.  1,  c.  21-22;  lib.  22,  c. 
13-23;  lib.  3,  c.  52. 

4  Optat.,  lib.  1. 

6  Ambros.  de  Obitu  Satyri  Fratris,  lib.  1,  n.  47. 

6  Idem  de  Poenit.,  lib.  2,  4. 

7  Lactant.  Div.  Instit.,  lib.  3,  c.  30. 


17 


258  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

real  cause  was,  as  I  believe,  that  having  denied  the 
institution  of  the  Primacy,  and  the  authority  lodged  in 
it  for  the  purpose  of  forming  and  maintaining  unity, 
they  were  without  a  criterion  or  proof  in  virtue  of 
which,  among  so  many  Christian  societies  divided 
from  and  condemning  each  other,  they  could  safely 
choose  the  one  with  which  they  were  to  be  joined  in 
communion,  and  the  outward  unity  of  duty  and 
obedience.  For  they  would  readily  conclude  that  the 
unity  so  often  commended  in  Scripture,  and  so  earnestly 
enjoined,  could  not  be  external,  since  God,  who  does 
not  command  impossibilities,  had  instituted  no  visible 
sign  to  mark  that  company  of  Christians,  which  alone 
among  all  the  rest  was  the  continuation  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Church  founded  by  Christ,  and  built  up 
by  the  Apostles. 

C.  From  the  same  source  must  the  third  Protestant 
doctrine  on  unity  be  derived.  Jurien1  filled  up  the 
sketch  of  this,  which  Casaubon,2  Claude,3  and 
Mestrezat4  had  drawn,  and  it  became  so  popular  as  not 
only  to  infect  a  large  number  of  Protestants,  but  to  exert 
a  withering  influence  on  certain  unstable  members  of 
the  Catholic  body.  It  teaches  that  we  must  believe  not 
only  in  an  internal  and  spiritual,  but  in  a  visible  and 
external  unity,  for  the  Scriptures  plainly  urge  its 
necessity,  and  Christian  tradition  fully  describes  it, 
so  that  there  is  not  a  truth  more  patent  or  established 
on  greater  authority.  This  unity,  however,  is  restricted 

1  Le  vrai  Systeme  de  l’Eglise. 

2  Answer  to  Cardinal  Perron. 

3  Defense  de  la  Reforme,  p.  200. 

4  Trait6  de  l’Eglise,  p.  286. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  259 

within  narrow  bounds,  and  confined  to  the  articles 
called  fundamental,  though  as  to  how  many  these  are 
no  one  defender  of  the  system  is  agreed  with  another. 
For  it  is  sufficient  for  Christians  not  to  differ  in  the 
profession  of  such  articles  for  them  to  be  deemed 
members  of  one  and  the  same  Church.  Whence  they 
infer  that  one  and  the  same  true  Church  is  made  up  out 
of  almost  all  Christian  societies,  the  Roman,  the  Greek, 
the  Nestorian,  the  Eutychian,  the  Waldensian,  the 
Lutheran,  the  Anglican,  and  the  Calvinist;  for  their 
differences,  important  as  they  are,  offer  no  hindrance  to 
the  unity  which  Christ  enjoined,  the  Apostles  preached, 
the  creeds  express,  and  universal  tradition  demands. 

As  Bossuet,1  the  brothers  Walemburg,2  Nicole,3  and 
even  some  Protestants  have  most  fully  dealt  with  this 
portentous  opinion,  there  is  no  need  to  urge  much 
against  it  here.  I  prefer  repeating  the  question,  What 
occasion  had  the  Protestants  to  get  up  so  unheard-of 
a  paradox,  and  a  system  so  absurd  ?  It  was  twofold: 
one  theoretical,  and  the  other  practical. 

The  theoretical  was  this.  The  crime  of  heresy,  de¬ 
picted  in  Scripture  and  Christian  antiquity  with  colours 
so  dark,  had  gradually  lost  its  foulness  and  its  magni¬ 
tude  in  the  minds  of  Protestants,  who  had,  at  length, 
come  to  the  pass  of  reckoning  religious,  as  well  as  civil, 
liberty,  among  the  unquestionable  rights  of  man.  As 
if,  all  other  human  acts  being  subject  to  a  law,  those 
alone  which  proceed  from  the  intellect  are  exempt: 

1  Bossuet,  writings  Against  Jurien. 

2  The  brothers  Walemburg,  Treatise  on  Necessary  and 
Fundamental  Articles. 

3  Nicole,  de  l’Unite  de  l’Eglise. 


260  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


as  if  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong,  which 
embraces  the  whole  range  of  man’s  life,  did  not  relate 
to  its  noblest  part,  in  the  acts  of  the  intellect  and  the 
reason:  as  if  God  had  laid  down  a  law  of  justice,  charity, 
fortitude,  and  prudence,  but  entirely  omitted  a  law 1  of 
faith:  as  if  the  will  submitted  to  a  law  of  good ,  but  the 
mind  owned  no  law  of  truth;  or  as  if  God  cared  for  the 
boughs  and  leaves,  but  took  no  thought  of  the  root.2 
But  what  could  Protestants  do  ?  Having  allowed  to 
all  full  licence  of  thought,  and  overthrown  the  authority 
which  ruled  the  mind,  they  were  forced,  while  they  kept 
the  name  of  heresy,  to  give  up  the  thing  meant  by  it, 
and  the  effects  springing  from  that  thing.  They  were 
forced  to  attenuate  to  the  utmost  the  crime  of  heresy, 
and  to  reduce  to  the  smallest  possible  number  articles 
necessary  to  be  believed  by  all;  they  were  forced  to 
extend  bevond  all  measure  the  Church’s  limits,  while 
they  contracted  beyond  all  measure  the  range  of 
necessary  unity. 

Besides  the  theoretical,  there  was  a  practical  occasion 
in  those  schisms  which,  not  merely  in  later  or  in 
mediaeval  times,  but  in  the  first  ages  also,  rent  the 
Christian  society.  Jurien  and  Pfaff  appeal  to  these, 
pretentiously  enumerating  those  which  arose  under 
Popes  Victor,  Cornelius,  Stephen,  Urban  VI,  and 
Clement  VII,  and  those  named  from  Donatus,  Meletius, 

1  See  the  recognition  of  this  law,  Mark  xvi  1 6 ;  Matt,  xxvii 
18-20;  Luke  xii  8,  9;  Rom.  x  10. 

2  Such  the  Fathers  call  Faith,  terming  it,  “  the  beginning 
and  foundation,”  “  the  greatest  mother  of  virtues,”  “  the 
principle  of  salvation,”  “  the  prelude  of  immortality,”  “  the 
clear  eye  of  divine  knowledge,”  “  the  fountain  of  all  wisdom.” 
See  Suicer,  art.  -n-U rris. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  261 


and  Acacius.  Then  they  ask  if  the  true  Church  of 
Christ  can  be  thought  to  consist  in  one  single  society 
perfectly  at  union  with  itself.  They  allege  many  con¬ 
jectures  against  this,  but  dwell  on  the  argument  that 
in  defect  of  a  visible  external  test ,  such  an  assertion  could 
not  be  maintained  without  imposing  upon  all  a  most 
intolerable  burden  of  searching  out  where  the  true  doctrine 
is  and  the  legitimate  ministerial  succession:  for  it  is 
not  until  these  are  found,  that  one  single  society  will 
be  recognized,  with  which,  as  the  only  true  Church, 
unity  of  communion  is  to  be  kept. 

Now,  I  confess  that  I  do  not  see  how  this  argument 
can  be  met,  if  the  institution  of  the  Primacy,  and  its 
proper  function  to  form  and  maintain  unity,  be  re¬ 
jected.  For,  without  this,  by  what  visible  token 
among  so  many  Christian  societies,  divided  by  in¬ 
testine  dissension,  and  condemning  each  other,  can 
you  distinguish  the  one  which  has  the  character  of  the 
true  Church  and  the  right  to  exact  communion  with 
itself  ?  There  is  none  to  be  found;  and  so,  either  all 
hopes  of  finding  the  true  Church  must  be  relinquished, 
or  an  inquiry  must  be  undertaken  into  purity  of  doctrine 
and  legitimate  ministerial  succession,  on  the  termina¬ 
tion  of  which  the  only  true  Church  will  at  last  be  found. 
But  as  this  latter  course  is  to  by  far  the  greater  number 
of  men  impossible,  dangerous1  to  all  without  exception, 

1  After  having  gone  through  the  search  for  ten  long  years, 
I  may  be  allowed  to  express  how  great  its  danger,  and  how 
great,  too,  the  blessedness  of  those  who  are  not  exposed  to  it. 
It  is  worth  the  experience  of  half  a  life  to  receive  the  truth, 
without  personal  inquiry,  from  a  competent  authority. 
Protestantism  begins  its  existence  by  casting  away  one  of  the 
greatest  blessings  which  man  can  have. 


262  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


and  most  foreign  to  the  Christian  temper,  the  only  con¬ 
clusion  remaining  is,  that  the  selection  of  a  Primacy 
with  the  power  of  effecting  unity  impressed  upon  it  is 
most  intimately  involved  and  bound  up  in  the  visibility 
and  unity  of  the  true  Church. 

And  quite  as  closely  is  it  bound  up  with  that  other 
test  of  the  Church,  its  Catholicism.  We  are  not  to 
believe  Voss  and  King,1  in  their  assertion  that  this 
test  began  to  be  applied  first  in  the  fourth  century,  for 
the  purpose  of  distinguishing  the  genuine  company  of 
the  orthodox,  and  the  true  body  of  Christ,  from  heretics 
and  schismatics.  For  we  find  the  Church  distin¬ 
guished  by  the  epithet  of  Catholic,  not  merely  in  the 
records  of  the  fourth2  and  fifth3  century,  but  in  those  of 
the  third,4  and  the  second,6  at  the  beginning  of  which 
St  Ignatius  wrote,  “  Follow  all  of  you  the  Bishop,  as 
Jesus  Christ  the  Father;  and  the  body  of  Presbyters, 
as  Apostles.  But  reverence  deacons,  as  the  command 
of  Christ.  Without  the  Bishop  let  nothing  of  what 
concerns  the  Church  be  done  by  any  one.  Let  that 
be  deemed  a  proper  Eucharist  which  is  under  the 

1  De  Symbolo,  Diss.  1,  39,  and  Hist.  Symb.  Apostol.,  cap. 
6,  16. 

2  Pacian,  Ep.  1,  n.  4.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Catech.  18, 
n.  23.  Eusebius  in  Isa.  xxxii  18.  Chrysostom  in  Col., 
horn.  1,  n.  2;  in  1  Cor.,  horn.  32,  n.  1.  Jerome  in  Matt, 
xxiv  26. 

3  Augustine  in  Ps.  xli,  n.  7;  Epist.  49,  n.  3-52,  n.  1,  and 
elsewhere. 

4  Council  of  Antioch,  quoted  by  Euseb.  Hist.,  lib.  7,  c.  30. 
Origen  in  Rom.,  lib.  8,  n.  1 ;  Cyprian,  Epist.  52;  Acts  of  St 
Fructuosus,  n.  3,  and  of  St  Pionius,  n.  9. 

6  Irenaeus,  lib.  3,  c.  17,  and  Epistle  on  Martyrdom  of  St 
Polycarp,  n.  19. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  263 

Bishop,  or  with  his  sanction.  Where  the  Bishop  is, 
there  also  let  the  multitude  be;  as,  where  Christ  Jesus 
is,  there  is  the  Catholic  Church.”1  As,  therefore,  that 
cannot  be  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  is  not  Catholic, 
we  ought  to  investigate  the  meaning  which  is  given  to 
this  word  by  the  consent  of  all  orthodox  believers. 

Now,  two  points  are  signified  in  it,  one  of  which  is 
its  material ,  the  other  its  formal \  or  essential ,  part. 
Its  material  part  is,  that  the  geographical  extension  of 
the  true  Church  be  such  that  its  mass  be  morally1 
universal,  absolutely  great,  and  eminently  visible,  but 
comparatively  with  all  heretical  and  schismatical  sects 
larger  and  more  numerous.  Of  this  material  meaning 
attached  to  the  epithet  Catholic,  we  find  abundant 
witnesses  in  all3  the  orthodox  writers  who  defended  the 
cause  of  the  Church  against  the  Donatists,  and  again, 
against  the  Luciferians4  and  Novatians;  and  likewise, 
in  those  who  have  explained  the  creeds,5  and,  as 
occasion  offered,  have  touched  on  the  force  of  the 
term  Catholic.6  But  the  same  first-cited  witnesses  tell 
us  that  universal  diffusion  is  not  sufficient,  and  that 
we  require  another  element  to  infuse  a  soul  into  this 
universally  extended  body,  and  to  bring  it  to  unity. 

For  two  properties  are  continually  recurring  in 

1  Epist.  to  Smyrneans,  n.  8. 

2  Augustine,  Ep.  52,  n.  1,  Serm.  238,  n.  3. 

3  As  Optatus,  lib.  2,  Aug.  de  Unitate  Ecc.,  c.  2,  etc.;  cont. 
Cresconium,  1  2,  c.  63.  Contr.  Petilian,  12-55,  5 8-73 ; 
in  Ps.  xxi  47,  147,  and  in  1  Ep.  John  Tract.  1,  2. 

4  Pacian,  Ep.  3,  Jerome  cont.  Luciferianos. 

6  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cat.  18. 

6  Irenasus,  lib.  1,  c.  10;  lib.  4,  c.  19.  Tertullian  adv 
Judasos,  c.  7.  Bernard  in  Cantica,  serm.  65. 


264  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Christian  records,  one  of  which  may  be  called  negative , 
the  other  affirmative.  The  force  of  the  former  is  to 
expel  from  the  circle  of  the  one  true  Catholic  Church  all 
sects  of  heretics  and  schismatics ;  of  the  latter,  that  this 
Church  consist  in  one  single  communion  and  society ,  whose 
members  cohere  together  by  hierarchical  subordination. 

But  is  it  true  that  both  these  points  are  so  plainly  and 
constantly  inculcated  ?  To  remove  all  doubt  we  will 
quote  the  authors  who  most  distinctly  assert  the  one 
and  the  other.  As  to  the  first,  there  are  Clement  of 
Alexandria,1  Tertullian,2  Alexander  of  Alexandria,3 
Celestine,4  Leander,5  the  Emperor  Justinian;6  then 
again  the  Councils  of  Nice,7  Sardica,8  and  the  third  of 
Carthage;9  nay,  the  heretics10  themselves;  and  all  these 
agree  in  asserting  that  there  is  one  only  ancient  Catholic 
Church ,  outside  of  which  the  divine  patience  endures 
and  bears  with  heresies,  which  are  as  thorns.  Thus 
in  language  ecclesiastical  and  Christian  nothing  can  be 
considered  as  more  certainly  proved  than  that  the 
epithet  of  Catholic  is  distinctive ,  and  shows  the  com¬ 
munion  which  rejects  from  its  bosom  all  heresies  and 

1  Clement,  Stromat.,  1.  7,  §§  15-17. 

2  Tertullian  de  Praesc.  c.  30. 

3  Alexander,  apud  Theodoret,  H.  E.,  lib.  1,  c.  4. 

4  Ccelestinus,  Homil.  in  laud,  eccles. 

6  Leander,  Cont.  Origenistas  in  Actis  Synodi  V. 

6  Justinianus,  Epist.  ad  Mennam  Constantinopolitanum. 

7  Council  of  Nice,  in  the  Creed,  and  Canon  8. 

8  Sardica,  in  letter  to  all  Bishops,  quoted  by  Athanasius, 
Apol.  2. 

9  22nd  Canon  of  Codex  Africanus. 

10  The  Nestorian  profession  of  faith,  in  fifth  act  of  Council 
of  Ephesus 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  265 

all  schisms.  It  was  with  great  reason,  therefore,  that 
Pacian1  wrote  what  Cyril  of  Jerusalem2  and  Augustine 
very  frequently  repeated,  “  Our  people  is  divided  from 
the  heretical  name  by  this  appellation,  that  it  is  called 
Catholic.”3 

Moreover,  this  unity,  which  we  have  said  may  be 
called  negative,  is  necessary  indeed  to  the  understanding 
of  the  Church  as  Catholic,  but  is  by  no  means  sufficient 
to  complete  the  idea  of  Catholicity.  To  it  therefore 
must  be  added  the  affirmative  unity,  by  which  Catho¬ 
licism  is  not  only  divided  from  heretics  and  schismatics, 
but  becomes  in  itself  a  coherent  body  with  members 
and  articulations.  That  which  we  so  often  read  in  the 
monuments  of  antiquity,  about  the  necessity4 5  of  com¬ 
munion  among  the  members  of  the  Church  and  the 
tokens6  and  means  of  that  communion,  has  reference 
to  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  this  unity,  which 
is  the  soul  of  Catholicity,  and  without  which  it  cannot 
even  be  conceived.  There  are  very  distinct  and  in¬ 
numerable  testimonies  about  it  in  the  ancient  Fathers,6 
declaring  its  necessity  and  setting  forth  its  mode  of 
composition  and  coherence. 

1  Pacian,  Ep.  1.  2  Cyril,  Catech.  18. 

3  Aug.  de  Vera  Relig.,  c.  6;  de  Utilit.  Credendi,  c.  7. 

4  Pacian,  Ep.  3,  “  The  Church  is  a  full  and  solid  body, 

diffused  already  through  the  whole  world.  As  a  city,  I  say, 
whose  parts  are  in  unity.  Not  as  you  Novatians,  an  insolent 
particle,  or  a  gathered  wen,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the 
body.” 

5  Such  as  are  ypa/^aara  KOLvwviKa,  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  lib.  7)  c.  30 ; 
eiTLcrToXai  KOLvwvLKai,  Basil,  Ep.  190,  or  KavwvLKai,  Ep.  224,  letters 
of  peace  commendatory,  ecclesiastical,  etc. 

G  See  especially  Chrys.  Horn.  30  on  1  Cor. 


266 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


For  to  set  forth  the  mode  of  this  is  the  plain  drift 
of  what  Irenaeus1  writes  in  confutation  of  heretics  by  the 
tradition  of  the  Apostolical  Churches:  “  For  since  it 
would  be  very  long  in  the  compass  of  our  present 
work  to  enumerate  the  successions  of  all  the  Churches, 
taking  that  Church  which  is  the  greatest,  the  most 
ancienr,  and  well  known  to  all,  founded  and  established 
at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  by  indicating  that  tradition  which  it  has  from  the 
Apostles,  and  the  faith  which  it  announces  to  men, 
which  has  reached  even  to  us  by  the  succession  of 
Bishops,  we  confound  all  those,  who,  in  whatsoever 
manner,  either  through  self-pleasing,  or  vainglory,  or 
blindness  and  evil  intention,  gather2  otherwise  than 
they  ought.  For  to  this  Church  on  account  of  its 
superior  principate,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church 
should  come  together3 — that  is,  the  faithful  who  are 
everywhere — for  in  this  Church  the  tradition  which  is 
from  the  Apostles  has  been  ever  preserved  by  those 
who  are  everywhere.  ...  By  this  ordination  and 
succession,  the  tradition  and  preaching  of  the  truth, 

1  Irenaeus,  lib.  3,  c.  3. 

2  Compare  Jerome’s  often-quoted  passage,  Ep.  15,  to 
Pope  Damasus,  “  Whoso  gathereth  not  with  thee,  scattereth; 
that  is,  whoso  is  not  of  Christ  is  of  Antichrist.” 

3  For  the  meaning  of  “  come  together,”  see  further  on, 

c.  40.  “  God  hath  placed  in  the  Church  Apostles,  Prophets, 

Doctors,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  of 
which  all  those  are  not  partakers  who  do  not  run  together  to 
the  Church,  but  defraud  themselves  of  life  by  an  evil  inten¬ 
tion  and  a  very  bad  conduct.  For  where  the  Church  is, 
there  is  the  Spirit;  and  where  is  the  Spirit  of  God,  there  is 
the  Church  and  all  grace.” 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  267 

which  is  from  the  Apostles  in  the  Church,  has  reached 
down  to  us.  And  this  proof  is  most  complete,  that  it 
is  one  and  the  same  vivifying  faith,  which  has  been 
preserved  and  handed  down  in  truth  in  the  Church 
from  the  Apostles  to  the  present  day.” 

The  Churches,  therefore,  which  are  everywhere 
diffused,  derive  that  strength  and  harmony  of  parts,  out 
of  which  the  whole  body  of  the  Catholic  Church  is 
made  up,  from  the  fact  of  their  agreeing  in  the  unity  of 
faith  and  preaching  with  that  Church  of  Peter,  which 
is  the  greatest,  the  chief,  and  the  more  powerful.  It 
follows  that  the  Primacy  of  Peter,  and  the  authority 
inherent  in  it  to  effect  unity,  is  that  principle  which 
Christ  selected,  that  the  Church  which  he  had  set  up 
might  be  Catholic,  and  bear  the  note  of  Catholicity  on 
its  brow. 

And  Cyprian  would  set  forth  the  same  mode  of  com¬ 
munion,  when  he  speaks  of  the  coherence  of  Bishops,  by 
which  both  the  Catholic  episcopate  is  made  one ,  and 
the  Church  one  and  Catholic.  For  as  the  several  com¬ 
munities  draw  the  unity  of  the  body  from  the  unity  of  the 
prelates  to  whom  they  are  subject,  so  all  prelates,  and 
the  communities  subject  to  them,  constitute  one  Catholic 
episcopate  and  one  Catholic  Church ,  because  they  cohere 
with  the  principal  Church,  the  root  and  matrix ,  which 
is  the  Church  of  Peter,  upon  whom  the  Lord  founded 
the  whole  building,  and  whom  he  instituted  to  be  the 
fountain  and  source  of  Catholic  unity.1 

1  See  St  Cyprian’s  letters,  69,  55,  45,  70,  73,  40.  Consider 
the  force  of  the  words,  “  Peter,  upon  whom  the  Church  had 
been  built  by  the  ‘  Lord,  speaking  once  for  all,  and  answering 
with  the  voice  of  the  Church,  says,  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we 


268  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


These  words  are  a  clue  to  understand  Tertullian’s* 1 
meaning,  when,  already  become  a  Montanist,  he  called 
the  Catholic  Church,  whose  discipline  he  was  attacking, 
the  Church  near  to  Peter — “  concerning  your  opinion 
I  now  inquire,  whence  you  claim  this  right  to  the 
Church.  If  because  the  Lord  said  to  Peter,  ‘  Upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church/  ‘  to  thee  will  I  give 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven/  or  ‘  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  or  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  or 
loosed  in  heaven/  you,  therefore,  pretend  that  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  is  derived  to  you — that 
is,  to  all  the  Church  near  to  Peter — how  do  you  over¬ 
throw  and  change  the  manifest  intention  of  the  Lord 
in  conferring  this  on  Peter  personally ,2  ‘  Upon  thee  I 
will  build  my  Church/  and  ‘  I  will  give  to  thee  the 

go  V  ”  (Ep.  55),  on  which  Fenelon  (de  sum.  Pontif.  auct.,  c.  12) 
remarks,  “  What  wonder,  then,  if  Pope  Hormisdas  and  other 
ancient  Fathers  say,  ‘  the  Roman,  that  is,  the  Catholic 
Church/  since  Peter  was  wont  to  answer  with  the  voice  of  the 
Church  f  What  wonder  if  the  body  of  the  Church  speaks  by 
the  mouth  of  its  head  ?” 

1  De  Pudicitia,  c.  21. 

2  This  Montanist  corruption  (into  which  Ambrose  on 
Ps.  xxxviii,  n.  37,  and  Pacian  in  his  three  letters  to  Sempronius, 
state  that  the  Novatians  also  fell)  induced  some  Fathers,  and 
especially  Augustine  (Enarrat.  in  Ps.  cviii,  n.  1,  Tract.  118 
in  Joan.,  n.  4,  and  last  Tract,  n.  7),  to  teach  that  the  keys 
were  bestowed  on  Peter  so  far  forth  as  he  represented  the 
person  of  the  Church  in  right  of  his  Primacy.  By  which 
mode  of  speaking  they  meant  this  one  thing,  that  the  power 
of  the  keys,  as  being  necessary  to  the  Church,  and  instituted 
for  her  good,  began  indeed  in  Peter,  and  was  communicated 
to  him  in  a  peculiar  manner,  but  by  no  means  dropped,  or 
could  possibly  drop,  with  him. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  269 

keys,’  not  to  the  Church,  and,  whatsoever  thou  bindest 
or  loosest,’  not  what  they  bind  or  loose  ?”  Now,  he 
used  this  mode  of  speaking  because  it  was  customary 
with  Catholics,  who  are  wont  to  exhibit  nearness  with 
Peter  as  the  characteristic  of  the  Church,  and  the 
necessary  condition  for  sharing  that  power,  whose 
plenitude  and  native  source  Christ  had  lodged  in 
Peter. 

This  certain  and  undoubting  judgement  of  Catholics 
Tertullian  himself,  before  his  error,  had  clearly  ex¬ 
pressed  in  his  book,  De  Scorpiace ,  c.  x,  where  he  says, 
“  For  if  you  yet  think  heaven  shut,  remember  that 
the  Lord  here  (Matt,  xvi  19)  left  its  keys  to  Peter,  and 
through  him  to  the  Church .” 

Nearness,  then,  with  Peter,  and  consanguinity  of 
doctrine1  thence  proceeding,  are  no  less  necessary  to 
the  Church,  that  it  may  be  the  Catholic  Church 
which  Christ  founded  and  built  upon  Peter,  than 
that  it  be  partaker  in  those  gifts  which,  again,  he 
himself  granted  only  to  unity,  as  it  is  effected  in  Peter 
and  by  Peter. 

Now,  not  only  the  most  ancient  Fathers,  as  Irenasus, 
Tertullian,  and  Cyprian,  but  the  whole  body  of  them, 
assign  the  origin  of  this  to  Peter.  This  they  make  the 
vivifying  principle  of  agreement,  society,  and  unity, 
without  which  the  Church  can  neither  be  intrinsically 
Catholic,  nor  the  mind  conceive  it  as  such.  It  is  so 
stated  by  Pacian,2  Ambrose,3  the  Fathers4  of  Aquileia, 

1  Tertull.  de  Praesc.,  c.  32. 

2  Pacian,  ad  Sempronium,  Epist.  3,  §  11. 

3  Ambrose,  de  Pcenit.,  lib.  1,  c.  7,  n.  33. 

4  Synodical  Epistle,  among  the  letters  of  Ambrose. 


270  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

Optatus,1  Gregory  Nazianzen,2  Jerome,3  Augustine,4 
Gelasius,5  Hormisdas,6  Agatho,7  Maximus  Martyr,8 
and,  to  shorten  the  list,  by  Leo  the  Great.9  It  is  in 
setting  forth  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  episcopate  that 
he  writes  what  ought  never  to  be  forgotten  by  Christian 
minds:  “For  the  compactness  of  our  unity  cannot 
remain  firm,  unless  the  bond  of  charity  weld  us  into 
an  inseparable  whole,  because,  as  we  have  many 
members  in  one  body,  and  all  members  have  not  the 
same  office,  so  we,  being  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ, 
and  every  one  members  one  of  another.  For  it  is  the 
connection  of  the  whole  body  which  makes  one  sound¬ 
ness  and  one  beauty;  and  this  connection,  as  it  requires 
unanimity  in  the  whole  body,  so  especially  demands 
concord  among  bishops.  For  though  these  have  a 
like  dignity,  yet  have  they  not  an  equal  jurisdiction; 
since  even  among  the  most  blessed  Apostles,  as  there 
was  a  likeness  of  honour,  so  was  there  a  certain  dis¬ 
tinction  of  power,  and  the  election  of  all  being  equal, 
pre-eminence  over  the  rest  was  given  to  one,  from 

1  Optatus,  de  Schism.  Donat,  lib.  2,  c.  2,  and  lib.  7,  c.  3. 

2  Gregory,  de  Vita  sua,  tom.  2,  p.  9. 

3  Jerome,  adv.  Jovin.,  lib.  1,  n.  14. 

4  Augustine,  in  Ps.  Cont.  partem  Donati,  cont.  Epist. 
Fundam.,  c.  4,  de  Utilitate  Credendi,  c.  17,  and  Epist.  43. 

5  Gelasius,  Epist.  14. 

6  Hormisdas,  Mansi,  tom.  8,  451,  in  the  conditions  on 
which  he  readmitted  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  the 
Eastern  Bishops  to  communion. 

7  Agatho,  in  a  letter  to  the  sixth  council,  read  and  accepted 
at  its  fourth  sitting. 

8  Maximus,  Bibl.,  Patr.,  tom.  2,  p.  76. 

9  Leo,  Epist.  10,  c.  1. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  271 

which  mould,  or  type,  the  distinction  also  between 
bishops  has  arisen.  It  was  provided  by  a  great 
ordering,  that  all  should  not  claim  to  themselves  all 
things,  but  that  in  every  province  there  should  be  one 
whose  sentence  should  be  considered  the  first  among  his 
brethren;  and  others,  again,  seated  in  the  greater  cities, 
should  undertake  a  larger  care,  through  whom  the 
direction  of  the  universal  Church  should  converge 
to  the  one  See  of  Peter,  and  nothing  anywhere  disagree 
from  its  head.” 

And,  if  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  the  direct  drift  of 
all  this  is  to  answer  the  question,  whether  the  doctrine 
of  Peter’s  Primacy,  and  its  virtue  as  the  constituent 
of  unity  and  Catholicity,  is  contained  in  the  most 
solemn  standard  of  faith,  the  creed.  For  although 
there  are  unimpeachable  testimonies  to  prove  that  the 
creeds  were  not  published  and  explained  to  catechu¬ 
mens,  in  order  to  convey  to  them  a  full  and  complete 
Christian  instruction ;  and  though  it  be  proved  further 
to  have  been  the  purpose  of  the  Church’s  ancient 
teachers  to  omit  many  points  in  the  creeds  which  were 
to  be  set  before  the  initiated  at  a  more  suitable  season 
afterwards,  it  may  nevertheless  be  said  that  the  most 
commonly  received  articles  of  the  creeds  may  be  re¬ 
garded  as  so  many  most  faithful  germs,  from  which 
the  remaining  doctrines  would  spontaneously  spring. 
And  so,  to  keep  within  our  present  point,  what  is  more 
plain  than  that  the  sum  of  doctrine,  concerning  Peter’s 
Primacy,  contained  in  the  Bible,  illustrated  by  the 
Fathers,  and  defined  by  Councils,  is  involved  in  that 
article  of  the  creed  in  which  we  profess  that  the  Church 
is  one  and  Catholic  ?  No  doubt  there  nowhere  occurs 


272  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

in  the  creeds,  expressed  in  so  many  words ,  mention  of 
Peter,  or  of  the  Primacy  bestowed  on  him,  or  of 
hierarchical  subordination;  yet  it  is  most  distinctly 
stated  that  the  Church  is  one  and  Catholic.  What 
meaning,  then,  were  the  faithful  to  give  to  those 
epithets  ?  What  were  they  to  intend  in  the  words, 
I  believe  one  Catholic  Church  ?  What  but  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  the  words  themselves  which  they  received  from 
the  Church’s  teachers  together  with  the  creeds  ?  Now 
they  could  not  form  the  conception  of  one  Church  and 
that  Catholic,  without  thinking  likewise  of  one  Catholic 
principle  of  the  Church;  nor  could  they  assign  the 
dignity  of  that  one  Catholic  principle  to  any  other  but 
Peter,  whom  alone  they  had  invariably  been  taught 
to  have  been  set  over  all.  For  what  St  Bernard1  wrote 
in  mediaeval  times,  “  For  this  purpose  the  solicitude 
of  all  Churches  rests  on  that  one  Apostolic  See,  that 
all  may  be  united  under  it  and  in  it,  and  it  may  be 
careful  in  behalf  of  all  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,”  must  be  considered 
nothing  else  than  a  repetition  of  the  faith  which 
resounded  through  the  whole  world,  from  the  very 
beginning  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Unless,  therefore,  any  can  be  found  who  prefer 
asserting  either  that  true  believers  never  understood 
what  they  believed,  in  professing  the  Church  to  be  one 
and  Catholic,  or  that  they  understood  this  otherwise 
than  it  had  been  universally  and  constantly  explained 
by  the  Church’s  teachers,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
faith  in  Peter’s  Primacy,  and  in  the  power  bestowed 
upon  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  visible  kingdom 
1  Ep.  358,  to  Pope  Celestine. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  273 

of  Christ  one  and  Catholic,  is  coeval  with  that  pro¬ 
fession  of  the  creeds  which  sets  forth  the  Church  as 
one  and  as  Catholic.1 

1  The  above  chapter  is  translated  from  Passaglia,  pp. 

298-336. 


# 


18 


CHAPTER  IX 
PETRUS  DE  PETRA 

The  question  whether  the  Roman  Primacy  be  of 
divine  right  or  not  is  the  hinge  upon  which  all  turns. 
This  precedence  or  prerogative  of  Rome  was  shown 
at  the  First  General  Council  of  Nicaea  in  325.  To 
whatever  extent  it  reached,  and  notwithstanding  the 
famous  twenty-eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon,  it  certainly 
was  not  either  claimed  or  granted,  especially  in  the 
West,  merely  because  Rome  was  the  imperial  city.  It 
was  explicitly  claimed  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome  himself, 
and  as  freely  conceded  by  others  to  him,  as  in  a  special 
sense  successor  of  St  Peter.  From  the  earliest  times 
that  the  Church  comes  before  us  as  an  organized  body, 
the  germ  at  least  of  this  pre-eminence  is  observable. 
From  the  very  first  the  Roman  Pontiff  seems  possessed 
himself,  as  from  a  living  tradition  which  had  thoroughly 
penetrated  the  local  Roman  Church,  with  a  conscious¬ 
ness  of  some  peculiar  influence  he  was  to  exercise  on 
the  whole  Church.  This  consciousness  does  not  show 
itself  here  and  there  in  the  line  of  Roman  Pontiffs,  but 
one  and  all,  whatever  their  individual  characters  might 
be,  seem  to  have  imbibed  it  from  the  atmosphere  which 
they  breathed.  St  Victor  and  St  Stephen,  St  Innocent, 
St  Leo  the  Great,  and  St  Gregory  are  quite  of  one  mind 
here.  That  they  were  the  successors  of  St  Peter,  who 
himself  sat  and  ruled  and  spoke  in  their  person,  was 

274 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  275 

as  strongly  felt  and  as  consistently  declared  by  those 
Pontiffs  who  preceded  the  time  of  Constantine,  and 
who  had  continually  to  pay  with  their  blood  the  price 
of  that  high  pre-eminence,  as  by  those  who  followed 
the  conversion  of  the  empire,  when  the  honour  of  their 
post  was  not  accompanied  by  so  much  danger.  I  am 
speaking  now,  be  it  remembered,  of  the  feeling  which 
possessed  them.  The  feeling  of  their  brother  bishops 
concerning  them  may  have  been  less  definite,  as 
was  natural;  but,  at  least,  even  those  who  were 
most  inclined  to  dispute  the  Pope’s  authority 
fully  admitted  that  they  sat  in  the  See  of  Peter, 
and  ordinarily  treated  them  with  the  greatest 
deference. 

Going  on  rather  more  than  a  hundred  years,  we 
come  to  St  Leo  the  Great.  His  long  and  able  Pontificate 
shows  forth  what  the  legitimate  power  of  the  Roman 
See  was,  and  how  it  tended  to  the  preservation  and 
unity  of  the  whole  Church.  He  lived  at  an  important 
crisis,  when  the  barbarous  tribes  of  the  North  were 
about  to  burst  over  the  empire  and  the  Church;  the 
system  of  which,  had  it  not  been  consolidated  by  him¬ 
self,  his  immediate  predecessors  and  successors,  might 
have  been  dissolved  and  broken  up  into  fragments. 
St  Leo  had  no  slight  sense  of  his  own  duty  and 
dignity  among  his  brother  bishops.  His  words  on  one 
particular  occasion  maybe  quoted:  “.  .  .  Out  of  the 
whole  world  Peter  alone  is  chosen  to  preside  over  the 
calling  of  all  the  Gentiles,  and  over  all  the  Apostles ,  and 
the  collected  Fathers  of  the  Church :  so  that  though  there 
he  among  the  people  of  God  many  priests  and  many 
shepherds ,  yet  Peter  rules  all  by  personal  commission 


276  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

whom  Christ  also  rules  by  sovereign  power.  Beloved ,  it 
is  a  great  and  wonderful  participation  of  his  own  power 
which  the  divine  condescendence  gave  to  this  man :  and  if 
he  willed  that  other  rulers  should  enjoy  aught  together 
with  him ,  yet  never  did  he  give ,  save  through  him ,  what 
he  denied  not  to  others.  .  .  . 

“  Wherefore  it  is  said  to  most  blessed  Peter,  ‘  I  will 
give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall 
be  loosed  in  heaven.  .  .  .’  So  then  in  Peter  the 
strength  of  all  is  protected ,  and  the  help  of  divine  grace  is 
so  ordered ,  that  the  stability ,  which  through  Christ  is 
given  to  Peter ,  through  Peter  is  conveyed  to  the  Apostles. 

“  Since,  therefore,  beloved,  we  see  such  a  protection 
divinely  granted  to  us,  reasonably  and  justly  do  we 
rejoice  in  the  merits  and  dignity  of  our  Chief,  giving 
thanks  to  the  Eternal  King,  our  Redeemer,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  for  having  given  so  great  a  power  to  him 
whom  he  made  chief  of  the  whole  Church,  that  if  any¬ 
thing,  even  in  our  time,  by  us  be  rightly  done  and 
rightly  ordered,  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  his  working, 
to  his  guidance,  unto  whom  it  was  said,  ‘  And  thou, 
when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren 
and  to  whom  the  Lord  after  his  resurrection,  in  answer 
to  the  triple  profession  of  eternal  love,  thrice  said  with 
mystical  intent,  ‘  Feed  my  sheep/  And  this,  beyond 
a  doubt,  the  faithful  shepherd  does  even  now,  and 
fulfils  the  charge  of  his  Lord,  strengthening  us  with 
his  exhortations,  and  not  ceasing  to  pray  for  us,  that 
we  may  be  overcome  with  no  temptation.  But  if, 
as  we  must  believe,  he  everywhere  discharges  this 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  277 

affectionate  guardianship  to  all  the  people  of  God, 
how  much  more  will  he  condescend  to  grant  his  help 
unto  us  his  children,  among  whom,  on  the  sacred  couch 
of  his  blessed  repose,  he  resteth  in  the  same  flesh  in 
which  he  ruled.  To  him,  therefore,  let  us  ascribe 
this  anniversary  day  of  us  his  servant,  and  this  festival, 
by  whose  advocacy  we  have  been  thought  worthy  to 
share  his  seat  itself,  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
helping  us  in  all  things,  who  liveth  and  reigneth  with 
God  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  for  ever  and  ever.” 

A  Pontiff  so  deeply  and  religiously  impressed  with 
the  prerogative  of  St  Peter’s  successor  was  likely  to  be 
energetic  in  discharging  his  duties.  In  truth,  we 
behold  St  Leo  set  on  a  watch-tower,  and  directing 
his  gaze  over  the  whole  Church:  over  his  own  West 
more  especially,  but  over  the  East  too,  if  need  be. 
He  can  judge  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Constantinople, 
as  well  as  Eugubium,  and  is  as  ready,  too,  wherever 
canons  are  broken,  ancient  customs  disregarded, 
encroachments  attempted,  where  bishops  are  neglectful 
or  metropolitans  tyrannical,  where  heresy  is  imputed 
to  patriarchs — in  short,  wherever  a  stone  in  the  whole 
sacred  building  is  being  loosened,  or  threatens  to  fall, 
there  is  he  at  hand  to  repair  and  restore,  to  warn,  to 
protect,  and  to  punish. 

Now,  how  did  his  own  contemporaries  receive  it  ? 
Did  they  protest  that  he  was  assuming  a  power  never 
given  to  his  see  ?  Did  they  declare  that  in  terming 
himself  the  special  successor  of  St  Peter,  who  lived 
and  reigned  in  his  see,  he  was  introducing  a  new  and 
unknown  idea  ?  The  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Chalce- 
don  did  not  think  so.  It  was  composed  of  all  the  great 


278  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

prelates  of  the  East,  the  Roman  legates,  who  presided 
in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  being  the  only  Westerns 
present.  The  Fathers  of  Chalcedon,  then,  call  the 
Pope  specially  the  successor  of  St  Peter,  and,  as  such, 
the  maintainer  of  the  deposit  of  doctrine  descending 
from  Christ  and  their  leader  ( apxvx unto  good. 
“  Our  mouth  was  filled  with  laughter  and  our  tongue 
with  joy ;  grace  has  fitted  this  prophecy  to  us,  by  whom 
the  restoration  of  piety  has  been  accomplished.  For 
what  can  be  higher  matter  of  concern  for  joy  than  the 
Faith,  or  motive  for  brighter  pleasure  than  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  the  Lord,  which  the  Saviour  himself  delivered 
unto  us  from  above  for  our  salvation,  when  he  said 
‘  Go  ye,  and  make  disciples  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ’  ?  This  know¬ 
ledge  descending  to  us  like  a  golden  chain  from  the 
command  of  him  who  established  it,  thou  hast  kept 
throughout,  being  set  forth  to  all  men  as  the  interpreter 
of  the  voice  of  the  blessed  Peter ,  and  drawing  upon  all 
the  blessing  of  his  faith.  Whence  we  also ,  enjoying  the 
advantage  of  thee  as  our  leader  unto  good ,  have  exhibited 
the  inheritance  of  the  truth  to  the  children  of  the 
Church,  not  teaching  each  by  himself  in  a  corner,  but 
making  known  the  confession  of  the  Faith  with  one 
Spirit,  with  one  accord  and  agreement. ” 

Speaking  of  themselves  as  assembled  in  CEcumenical 
Council,  they  say  the  Pope  presided  over  them,  as  the 
Head  over  the  members:  “For  if,  where  two  or  three 
are  gathered  together  in  his  name,  there  he  said  he 
would  be  in  the  midst  of  them,  how  intimately  showed 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  279 

he  himself  to  five  hundred  and  twenty  priests,  who 
preferred  the  declaration  of  their  confession  in  him 
before  both  their  country  and  their  toil  ?  They  speak 
of  the  Pope  as  the  one  to  whom  the  guardianship  of 
his  vine  was  entrusted  by  the  Saviour;  saying  of 
Dioscorus,  the  deposed  Archbishop  of  Alexandria,  that 
he,  “  besides  all  this,  turned  his  madness  even  against 
the  very  one  entrusted  by  the  Saviour  with  the  guardian¬ 
ship  of  the  vine,  thy  Holiness  we  mean  ”  They  term 
themselves  the  Holy  Father’s  children.  “  We  have 
judged  well-timed  the  confirmation  of  this  honour  to 
it  ”  (the  rank  of  the  second  see  to  the  Church  of 
Constantinople),  “  by  the  (Ecumenical  Council,  and 
have  ratified  it  with  confidence,  as  if  it  had  been  begun 
by  thy  Holiness,  who  art  ever  ready  to  cherish  them: 
being  aware  that  every  success  of  the  children  is  reckoned 
to  the  parents  who  own  them . 

“We  therefore  entreat  that  you  would  honour  our 
decision  with  your  suffrage  likewise :  as  we  have  intro¬ 
duced  agreement  zvith  the  head  (77 7  KepaXfj)  in  good  things , 
so  let  your  Highness  (fj  /copvpfj  to£?  iraialv)  fulfil  to 
your  children  what  is  fitting  ”  Lastly,  they  leave  to 
him  the  confirmation  of  their  acts:  “  We  have  left  the 
whole  force  of  the  acts  to  you,  that  you  may  approve  of  us, 
confirming,  and  assenting  to,  what  we  have  done” 

He  who  rejects  the  Primacy  of  the  Pope,  with  this 
letter  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  before  him,  must 
be  prepared  to  give  up  the  witness  of  antiquity,  and  to 
reject  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Let  us  first  take  particular  expressions  of  early 
Fathers,  and  then  give  a  general  summary  of  them. 
Thus  Clement,  the  disciple  of  St  Peter  and  St  Paul, 


280  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

enforces  the  words  of  the  latter:  “  Why  do  we  raise  a 
sedition  against  our  own  body,”  that  body  being  the 
body  of  Christ,  because  “  there  is  one  God  and  one 
Christ  and  one  Spirit  of  grace  poured  out  upon  us  ?” 
So  St  Hermas  sees  the  Church  militant  in  a  tower  built 
upon  Christ’s  rock,  so  evenly  jointed  together  that  it 
seemed  to  be  wrought  out  of  one  stone,  for  which 
especially  its  Builder  rejoiced  over  it.  And  Irenaeus, 
who  almost  touches  St  John  through  his  teacher 
Poly  carp,  says,  that  as  the  natural  light  is  sphered  in 
the  sun,  so  the  light  of  divine  truth  in  the  Church; 
that  the  Church  is  the  storehouse  of  truth ;  that  where 
the  Church  is,  there  is  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  where 
the  Spirit  of  God  is,  there  is  the  Church  and  all  grace; 
but  the  Spirit  is  truth ;  that  the  Church  is  the  seven- 
branched  candlestick,  bearing  Christ’s  light;  that  as 
the  sun  revolves  in  its  orbit,  so  there  is  one  tradition 
of  the  truth,  which  the  Church  presents  to  the  world. 
Thus  richly  does  Irenaeus  unfold  the  thought  of 
Ignatius  of  Antioch,  the  contemporary  of  Apostles, 
“  where  Jesus  Christ  is  there  is  the  Catholic  Church;  ” 
and  that  as  Christ  is  the  mind  (71 tco/jurj)  of  the 
Father,  so  the  bishops  throughout  the  world  are  the 
mind  of  Christ;  and  “  haste  together  then  all  as  to 
the  Temple  of  God ,  as  to  one  altar,  as  to  one  Jesus 
Christ;”  and  “  as  many  as  come  to  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  these  also  shall  be  of  God.”  And  that  other 
thought  of  another  disciple  of  Apostles:1  “  This  is  he 
who  is  from  the  beginning,  who  appeared  as  one  now, 
who  was  found  (in  time),  and  is  ever  being  freshly 
born  in  the  hearts  of  saints,  through  whom  the  Church 
1  The  author  of  the  letter  to  Diognetus. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  281 

receives  her  treasure ,  and  grace  expanding  is  midtiplied 
in  the  saints;  so  that  the  grace  of  the  Church  exults ,  which 
grace  not  grieving,  you  will  learn  what  the  Word 
utters.” 

Human  languages  are  different,  says  the  same 
Irenaeus,  but  everywhere  throughout  the  earth,  as  in 
one  home  of  faith,  “  the  power  of  the  tradition  is  one 
and  the  same;  ”  and  Tertullian  echoes  from  Africa, 
“  No  other  principle  rules  these  rights  than  the  one 
tradition  of  the  same  sacr amentum;”  and  Cyprian  takes 
up  his  master’s  words:  “  This  sacramentum  of  unity, 
this  bond  of  concord,  inseparably  cohering  together, 
is  shown  in  the  robe  of  our  Lord,  possessed  unbroken 
and  undivided whence  Augustine  and  Leo  carry  it  on, 
and  describe  “  the  firm  framework  of  our  unity;  and 
so  all  of  them  express  that  great  tower  of  St  Hermas, 
rising  from  the  rock,  as  built  of  one  stone.  “  The 
Church,”  says  Clement,  from  Alexandria,  “  is  one  alone 
in  her  foundation,  in  her  idea,  in  her  origin,  in  her 
excellence:  she  is  one  because  the  Godhead  is  one,  and 
because  the  Holy  Trinity  is  one.”  “  She  is,”  says 
Origen,  “  the  body  of  Christ,  animated  by  the  Son  of 
God,  as  the  soul  quickens  and  moves  the  human  body.” 
“  She  is  the  fortified,  impregnable  city,”  repeats 
Eusebius  of  Cesarea,  Hilary,  Theodoret,  Augustine, 
from  Palestine,  Gaul,  the  Far  East,  and  Africa,  because 
Christ  is  her  founder  and  inhabitant,  which  Alexander 
of  Alexandria  expresses  in  almost  the  same  form :  “  She 
is  for  ever  indestructible,  though  the  whole  world 
should  choose  to  war  with  her,  and  bears  away  the 
victory  over  every  most  impious  insurrection  of  heretics , 
because  the  Master  of  the  House  is  the  ground  of  her 


282  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

confidence  that  is,  being  “  the  House  of  God  ” 
(1  Tim.  iv  15%  the  Master  of  the  House  is  always  in 
her.  “  She  is,”  says  Athanasius,  “the  manhood  of 
Christ,  in  him  having  domination  and  royal  power 
after  his  crucifixion,  and  anointed  to  be  his  kingdom.” 
Irenaeus,  Athanasius,  and  Jerome,  all  call  her  the  Sun; 
Irenasus,  as  moving  in  one  orbit  unswervingly,  en¬ 
lightening  all  the  earth;  Athanasius,  as  the  faithful 
witness  in  heaven,  lasting  for  ever;  Jerome,  as  drying 
up  all  the  streamlets  of  error  with  her  single  light  and 
heat.  No  image  can  more  strongly  than  this  represent 
her  unity,  universality,  and  perpetuity,  and  again  her 
prerogative  to  be  the  fountain  of  grace  and  truth,  as 
God’s  creature,  in  whom  is  the  Word  made  Flesh. 
“  She  is,”  says  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  “  the  great 
inheritance  of  Christ,”  thus  using  Augustine’s  favourite 
expression  against  the  Donatists;  and  he  adds,  “  the 
fruitfulness  of  the  Tree  that  fills  the  world,”  which  is 
St  Augustine’s  Vine;  and  St  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
specially  notes  that,  “  while  the  kings  of  the  different 
nations  have  territorial  limits  to  their  power,  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  alone  has  a  power  throughout  the 
whole  world  which  has  no  territorial  limit.” 

Now,  passing  from  single  expressions  of  particular 
Fathers,  let  us  see  what  they  all  agree  in.  It  may  be 
thus  summed  up.  As  there  is  one  only  Christ,  so  there 
is  one  only  Church;  as  the  Church  is  one,  because 
Christ  is  one,  so  it  is  one  Body,  because  he  has 
taken  a  Body ;  it  is  therefore  the  work  of  his  Incarnation, 
and  to  dissolve  this  Body  is  to  dissolve  Christ;  for  as 
Christ  cannot  be  divided,  so  neither  the  Church;  the 
Church,  as  his  Body,  is  the  receptacle  of  his  truth  and 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  283 

grace.  As  the  Holy  Spirit  dwelt  in  Christ  upon  earth, 
so  he  dwells  in  the  permanent  order  of  the  Church’s 
ministry,  the  perpetual  existence  of  which,  in  the  unity 
of  his  Body,  is  the  safeguard  against  error.  Through 
this  ministry,  as  the  joints  and  ligaments  of  this  one 
Body,  the  life  of  Christ  descends  from  the  Head  to  the 
members,  and  Christ’s  life  is  Truth  and  Grace.  Thus 
the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in  the  Church  permanently, 
as  in  a  home,  as  in  a  shrine,  as  in  the  Body  of  Christ, 
as  the  marriage-ring  with  which  she  is  espoused  as 
his  Bride ;  but  the  same  Spirit  dwells  in  particular  men 
only  as  members  of  the  Body,  and  so  long  as  they  con¬ 
tinue  to  be  members  of  it;  as  dwellers  in  the  House,  and 
so  long  as  they  continue  to  dwell  in  it ;  as  worshippers 
in  the  Shrine,  and  so  long  as  they  continue  to  worship 
in  it.  By  virtue  of  this  union  with  Christ,  as  of  the 
Body  with  the  Head,  the  Church  possesses  the  great 
function  of  receiving,  teaching,  unfolding,  and  pre¬ 
serving  the  Truth,  and  of  communicating  the  Grace 
by  which  the  Truth  is  held ;  and  the  mode  of  this  union 
is  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  her  as  the  Spirit 
of  the  Head.  Thus,  belief  in  our  Lord  and  his  Incar¬ 
nation  is  blest  and  fused  throughout  with  belief  in  the 
unity,  truth,  grace,  and  stability  of  the  Church:  the 
Head  and  the  Body  stand  together. 

Having,  on  the  one  hand,  this  vast  amount  of 
positive  proof,  from  sources  so  various,  in  behalf  of 
Peter’s  Primacy,  so  that  without  it  the  whole  Christian 
history  of  eighteen  centuries,  in  all  its  manifold  blend¬ 
ings  with  secular  history,  becomes  unintelligible,  a 
tangle  which  it  is  impossible  to  arrange ;  when  we  come 
on  the  other  hand,  to  consider  what  its  opponents  allege 


284  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

as  positive  argument  on  their  own  side,  we  find  nothing. 
They  content  themselves  with  objections  to  this  or  that 
detached  point,  with  historical  difficulties,  and  obscura¬ 
tions  of  the  full  proof,  such,  for  instance,  as  the  con¬ 
duct  of  St  Cyprian  in  one  controversy,  the  occasional 
resistance  of  a  metropolitan,  the  secular  instinct  of  an 
imperial  government  stirring  up  Eastern  bishops  to 
revolt,  and  fostering  an  Erastian  spirit  in  the  Church, 
the  ambition  of  thoroughly  bad  men,  such  as  Acacius  or 
Photius,  and  the  like.  But  what  we  may  fairly  ask  of 
opponents,  and  what  we  never  find  the  most  distant 
approach  to  in  them  is,  if,  as  they  say,  St  Peter’s 
Primacy  be  not  legitimate  and  instituted  by  Christ 
for  the  government  of  the  Church,  what  counter -system 
have  they,  which  they  can  prove  by  ancient  documents, 
and  whereby  they  can  solve  the  manifold  facts  of 
history  ?  In  all  their  arguments  against  the  Primacy 
they  are  so  absolutely  negative  that  the  grand  result, 
if  they  were  successful,  would  be  to  reduce  the  Church 
to  a  heap  of  ruins,  to  show  that  she,  who  is  entrusted 
with  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  world,  has  no 
internal  coherence  either  of  government  or  doctrine — 
in  fact,  no  message  from  God  to  deliver,  and  no  power 
to  enforce  it  when  delivered.  In  the  arguments  of 
Greeks  and  Anglicans,  Lutherans  and  Calvinists,  and 
all  the  Protestant  sects,  the  gates  of  hell  have  long 
ago  prevailed  against  the  Church,  and  the  devil  has 
built  up  at  his  ease  a  city  of  confusion  on  the  rock 
which  Christ  chose  for  her  foundation.  If  we  listen 
to  them,  never  has  victory  been  more  complete  than 
that  of  the  Evil  One  over  the  Son  of  God :  the  promised 
unity  he  has  scattered  to  the  winds;  the  doctrine  of 


ST  PETER*  HIS  NAME  AND  HIS  OFFICE  285 

truth  he  has  utterly  corrupted;  the  charity  wherewith 
Christians  loved  one  another  he  has  turned  into  gall 
and  wormwood.  That  is,  the  opponents  of  St  Peter’s 
Primacy  are  one  and  all  simply  destructive;  they  inspire 
despair,  and  are  the  pioneers  of  infidelity,  but  are 
utterly  powerless  to  build  up.  Ask  the  Anglican  what 
is  the  source  of  spiritual  jurisdiction,  and  the  bond  of 
the  episcopate  which  he  affects  to  defend  ?  He  makes 
no  reply.  All  he  can  say  is,  it  is  not  St  Peter.  Ask  the 
Greek,  if  bishops  and  patriarch  disagree,  and  come  to 
opposite  judgements  on  the  faith,  or  to  schisms  in  com¬ 
munion,  which  party  make  the  Church  ?  He  has  no 
solution  to  offer ,  save  that  it  is  not  the  party  which  sides 
with  St  Peter’s  successor.  Ask  the  pure  Protestant, 
who  maintains  the  sole  authority  of  the  written  word, 
if  you  disagree  about  the  meaning  of  Scripture  in 
points  which  you  admit  to  touch  salvation,  who  is 
to  determine  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  of 
God  ?  He  has  nothing  to  reply ,  save  that  he  is  sure  it 
is  not  the  Pope.  Contrast,  then,  on  the  one  side,  a 
complete  coherent  system,  fully  delineated  and  set 
forth  in  the  Bible,  attested  by  the  Fathers,  corroborated 
by  analogy,  and  harmonizing  the  history  of  eighteen 
hundred  years  in  its  infinitely  numerous  relations, 
with,  on  the  other  side,  a  mere  heap  of  objections  and 
denials,  with  shreds  of  truths  held  without  cohesion, 
with  analogy  violated,  history  thrown  into  hopeless 
confusion,  and,  to  crown  the  whole,  Holy  Scripture 
incessantly  appealed  to,  yet  its  plainest  declarations 
recklessly  disregarded,  and  its  most  consoling  promises 
utterly  evacuated.  Choose  upon  this,  between  within 
and  without. 


286  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


St  Paul1  taught  us  to  listen  to  witnesses,  and 
Christendom,  whether  assembled  in  council,  or  every¬ 
where  diffused,  was  content  to  depend  on  them.  Most 
clear  is  what  is  said  on  this  point  about  the  Fathers  at 
Nicaea2  and  Ephesus,3  and  no  less  so  the  words  of 
Leontius  of  Byzantium4  John  Cassian,5  Theodoret,6 
Augustine,7  Jerome,8  Epiphanius,9  Basil,10  Origen,11 
Tertullian,12  Clement  of  Alexandria,13  and  the  oldest 
of  all,  Irenaeus.14  “  The  true  knowledge,”  he  says, 
“  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  ancient  state 
of  the  Church  in  the  whole  world,  and  the  character 
of  the  body  of  Christ,  according  to  the  succession  of 
bishops,  by  which  they  handed  down  the  Church, 
which  is  in  every  place,  which  hath  reached  even  to  us, 
being  guarded  without  fiction,  with  a  most  full  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Scriptures ,  admitting  neither  addition 
nor  subtraction,  and  the  reading  without  falsification, 
and  legitimate  and  diligent  exposition  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  without  danger,  and  without  blasphemy, 

1  2  Tim.  ii  2. 

2  See  Athanas.  de  decretis  Nic.  Synodi,  and  also  Hist, 
tripartit.,  lib.  2,  3. 

3  See  Vincent  of  Lerins,  Commonit.,  c.  32,  33. 

4  Leontius,  contr.  Nestorium,  lib.  1. 

5  Cassian,  de  Incarn.,  lib.  1. 

6  Theodoret,  in  the  three  dialogues. 

7  Augustine,  cont.  Cresconium,  1,  c.  32,  33. 

8  Jerome,  Ep.  126,  and  Dialog,  adv.  Luciferianos. 

9  Epiphanius,  Hasres.  61,  75,  78. 

10  Basil,  cont.  Eunomium,  lib.  1 ;  de  Spiritu  S.,  c.  29. 

11  Origen  in  Matt.  Tract.  29. 

12  Tertullian,  throughout  the  book  De  Prescriptionibus. 

13  Clement,  Stromatum,  lib.  7. 

14  Irenasus,  lib.  4,  c.  63  and  45. 


ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office  287 

and  the  chief  gift  of  charity,  which  is  more  precious 
than  knowledge,  more  glorious  than  prophecy,  more 
eminent  than  all  graces.”  For,  as  he  says  elsewhere, 
“We  ought  to  learn  the  truth,  where  the  gifts  of  the 
Lord  are  placed ;  among  whom  is  that  succession  of  the 
Church,  which  is  from  the  Apostles,  sound  and  irre¬ 
proachable  conversation,  and  discourse  unadulterated 
and  incorrupt.  For  these  maintain  that  faith  of  ours 
in  one  God,  who  made  all  things:  these  increase  that 
love  towards  the  Son  of  God,  who  has  made  for  our 
sake  so  great  dispositions:  these  explain  to  us  the 
Scriptures  without  peril” 

And,  besides,  where  is  the  Protestant  who  does  not 
praise  the  Hebrew  illustrations  of  Lightfoot,  Schoettgen, 
and  Meuschen  ?  or  who  does  not  at  least  make  much 
of  the  commentaries  of  Aben  Ezra,  Kimchi,  Jarchi, 
and  others,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  ?  They  all  see  the  advantage  of  approach¬ 
ing  such  sources  of  information,  and  using  them  for 
their  own  purpose.  But  are  we  to  refuse  to  the  Fathers 
and  ancient  doctors  of  the  Church  the  deference  which 
we  allow  to  Rabbins  and  Talmudists  ?  This  is 
at  least  a  reason  for  hearing  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers. 

And  if  it  be  concordant,  constant,  and  universal, 
it  most  powerfully  recommends  that  scriptural  inter¬ 
pretation  which  agrees  with  it.  In  this,  all  Catholics 
without  exception,  and  the  most  judicious  and  learned 
Protestants,  are  agreed.  In  good  truth,  it  would  be 
incredible  that  an  interpretation  could  be  false,  which 
was  adopted  unanimously  by  the  Fathers  of  every  age 
and  country.  And  it  ought  to  be  as  incredible  to  find 


288  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 

any  one  so  conceited  as  not  to  be  greatly  moved  by  the 
witness  and  consent  of  Christian  antiquity. 

One  point  of  inquiry  remains,  whether  the  Fathers 
have  given  their  opinion,  and  that  unanimously,  on 
Peter  and  the  texts  which  relate  to  him.  But  their 
words  inserted  in  the  foregoing  pages  entirely  terminate 
this  controversy,  and  show  that  they  were  all  of  the 
mind  expressed  by  Gregory  the  Great,  in  these  words, 
which,  it  is  well  to  remember,  were  directed  to  the 
supreme  civil  authority  of  those  days,  for  he  tells  the 
emperor — 

“  To  all  who  know  the  Gospel,  it  is  manifest  that 
the  charge  of  the  whole  Church  was  entrusted  by  the 
voice  of  the  Lord  to  the  holy  Apostle  Peter,  Prince  of 
all  the  Apostles.  For  to  him  it  is  said,  ‘  Peter,  lovest 
thou  me  ?  Feed  my  sheep.’  To  him  is  said,  ‘  Behold, 
Satan  hath  desired  to  sift  you  as  wheat,  but  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  Peter,  that  thy  faith  fail  not;  and  do 
thou,  one  day,  in  turn,  confirm  thy  brethren.’  To 
him  is  said,  ‘  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.  And  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  And  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
upon  earth,  it  shall  be  bound  also  in  heaven;  and  what¬ 
soever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  it  shall  be  loosed  also 
in  heaven.’  ”x 


1  St  Greg.  Ep.,  lib.  5,  20. 


INDEX 


Abraham  and  Peter,  parallel 
between,  26,  29,  30 
Acacius,  284 

Acacius  of  Constantinople,  284 
Agatho,  70,  270 
Alexander,  quoted,  264,  291 
Alexandrine  Apion,  allusion  to, 
152 

Ambrose,  St:  on  Luke,  12,  18, 
89,  91 ;  quoted,  70,  257,  281 
Ambrosiaster,  quoted,  182,  196 
Aquileia,  Fathers  of,  240 
Archimandrites  of  Syria  to 
Pope  Hormisdas,  240 
Arnobius,  quoted,  163 
Arnobius,  junior,  quoted,  240 
Athanasius,  quoted,  31,  202,  282 
Augustine,  St,  quoted,  17,  31, 
81,  122,  200,  256,  299,  270, 
286 

Baronius,  187 

Basil,  St,  quoted,  18,  96,  281 
Bede  the  Venerable,  quoted,  156 
Bernard,  St:  to  Innocent  II, 
67;  de  Con.,  240;  in  Cant., 
263,  272 

Boanerges,  name  of,  12 
Bossuet:  Serm.,  84,  88,  114; 
against  Jurien,  259 

Cartright,  on  Whitgift,  250 
Casaubon,  quoted,  258 
Cassian,  John,  his  testimony, 
124, 286 

Cassiodorus,  quoted,  185 
Celestirxe,  Pope,  referred  to,  272 
Chrysologus,  St  Peter,  quoted, 
17 

Chrysostom,  St,  quoted,  10,  n, 
16,  31,  40,  42,69,  90,  97, 128, 
133,  135,  140,  143,  158,  164, 
170,  179,  182,  186,  193,  265 


Claude,  quoted,  258 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  St:  his 
testimony,  279;  Strom.,  281. 
286 

Ccelestinus,  Horn.,  264 
Council  of  Antioch,  282 

of  Chalcedon,  19,  33,  277, 
278 

of  Carthage,  248,  279; 

Nicene,  249,  264,  274 
of  Constantinople,  248 
Councils,  (Ecumenical,  quoted. 

248 

Cyprian:  Ep.,  17,  22,  51,  62, 
68,  112,  150,  195,  207, 

262,  291 ;  de  Unit.  Eccl., 
218,  253,242,  275 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  St,  10,  129 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  quoted,  69, 
201,  265,  282 

Dante,  Inferno  quoted,  221 
Dionysius,  quoted,  128 
Dodwell,  247 
Donatists,  mentioned,  263 

Ephrem,  Patriarch  of  Antioch, 
“274 

Ephrem,  Syrus,  St.,  quoted,  69, 
219 

Epiphanius,  17,  157,  286 
Eucherius  of  Lyons,  quoted, 
201 

Eusebius,  quoted,  162,  281 
Euthalius,  quoted,  134 

Fenelon,  quoted,  268 

Gallican  Sacramentary,  17 
Gelasius,  quoted,  270 
Greek  Fathers,  comparison,  194 
Gregory  the  Great:  Pope  St, 
274,  288 


289 


290  ST  peter:  his  name  and  his  office 


Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  quoted, 
17,  201,  242,  270 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  185,  282 
Gregory  II,  Pope,  to  Leo  the 
Isaurian,  126 

Hermas,  St,  280 
Hilary  of  Poitiers,  on  Matt., 
17,  201,  248,  281 
Hippolytus,  quoted,  200 
Hormisdas,  Pope,  270 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,  220,  280 
Innocent,  Pope  St,  122,  274 
Irenaeus,  quoted,  185,  200,  220, 
248,  262,  266,  280,  281,  286 
Isidore,  St,  Bishop  of  Seville, 
125 

Jerome,  St :  Dialog.,  quoted,  5 1 , 
150,  168,  185,  193,  243,  248, 
262,  286;  to  Pope  Damasus, 
266 

Jurien,  quoted,  260 

King,  quoted,  262 

Lactantius,  257 
Lateran  Synod,  63 
Leander,  quoted,  264 
Leo,  St,  quoted,  17,  68,  91, 
123,  187,  274,  277 
Lightfoot,  286,  287 

Martin  I,  Pope,  63 
Maximus  of  Turin,  17,  124, 
270 

Mestrezat,  quoted,  258 
Mosheim,  quoted,  220, 257 

Nicole,  quoted,  259 
Novatian,  mentioned  by  Cy¬ 
prian,  254 


Optatus,  St,  quoted,  123,  257, 
263,  270 

Origen:  on  Luke,  12;  in 
Ps.  i,  17,  19,  41 ;  on  John, 
97,  248,  269,  286 

Pacian,  quoted,  262,  263,  265, 
268 

Passaglia,  12, 30, 144,  153,  177 
Pearson,  quoted,  247 
Polycarp,  St,  280 
Petavius,  quoted,  120,  220 
Pfaff,  quoted,  260 
Philip,  Legate  of  Holy  See,  18 
Photius,  mentioned,  284 
Proclus,  Patriarch  of  Constan¬ 
tinople,  240 

Stephen  of  Dora,  93 
Stephen  of  Larissa,  to  Boni¬ 
face  II,  70 

Stephen,  Pope  St,  274 

Tertullian,  quoted,  17,  185,  220, 
248,  263,  264,  269,  281,  286 
Theodore,  Abbot,  to  Paschal  I, 

63 

Theodore,  Pope,  allusion  to, 
122 

Theodoret,  10;  to  St  Leo,  168, 
179;  quoted,  17,  179,  281, 
286 

Theophylact,  quoted,  58 
Thomas  of  Canterbury,  St, 
quoted,  184 

Victor,  Pope  St,  274 
Vincent  of  Lerins,  286 
Vitringa,  Sacred  Observations, 

250,  254 

Voss,  quoted,  262 
Walemburg,  the  Brothers,  259 


Date  Due 

per  7 

9*1  w 

'  i  k  ‘ 

|  t 

/ .  '-<0. 

f  •*  J  4 

*1 

f  aO^~“  ; 

RP20’^ 

/  h  •- 

^  '55 

X  2  7  st 

t  J  H  '•■ 
*>  y  j 

>2 

?A 

t 

aw** — 

H 

'  . 

1 

onr  *  « 

•CTD  1  g 

— t  a*  - 

?0P4 

$> 

